The weekly who should be our sub thread [Archive]

Rocco Jones

21-05-2011, 12:46 AM

I like chewing the fat over who will be our sub and decided to start a thread to appease my needs for banter on the matter.

After our team is named, come here to discuss with me about who should be our sub. It should be a hoot.

Vs Eagles, here are the contenders IMO

Wood- Coming off a long lay out but his role discounts him from being a sub IMO.

Higgins- Another one coming back from injury. If his fitness isn't great, he could be an option but I would prefer to start him and see how long he can last before blowing out.

Libba- Great in bursts and generally tires means he could be suited to the role but on the other perhaps his burst style might do the opposite (being suited to quick rotations, would get tired as a sub anyway etc). Perhaps leave his turn as a sub once he has had a few games in a row and it can act as somewhat of a rest.

Moles- Has done reasonably well in his 2 appearances as a sub but it would make 3 turns at it in 4. I think that's a bit too much.

Stack- Interesting to see his role now that Shaggy and Wood are in the side. I think he is a poor psychological fit for the role but being 21st/22nd picked, having pace and no other standout options means he is my pick.

Bulldog Joe

21-05-2011, 08:29 AM

Stack is probably a good option as he can play either end. He is subject to decision making errors and these tend to happen more for everyone later in games when fatigue is a factor.

However, he did play as the sub earlier in the year (Gold Coast ?) and failed to impact when introduced into the game. Maybe he is not menatlly ready as he would not really feel that he has arrived as a footballer.

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 09:04 AM

As I said in the other thread , Wood this week is the most obvious Sub , not quite back to match fitness but fit enough to cover an early injury. Tactically I would Sub Grant off at HT , then rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield/ Forward Pocket

( the only way I would use Higgins as the Sub would be to Sub him for Grant 10mins into the 3rd quarter and tell him not to move more than 5 metres from the goal square - EDIT for those that need a little more information this would be a specific crumbing only role close to goal )

.

stefoid

21-05-2011, 09:17 AM

I doubt they are going to pick wood - he hasnt played since 10 minutes into round 1 -- not even in the reserves

Bulldog Joe

21-05-2011, 09:36 AM

As I said in the other thread , Wood this week is the most obvious Sub , not quite back to match fitness but fit enough to cover an early injury. Tactically I would Sub Grant off at HT , then rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield/ Forward Pocket

( the only way I would use Higgins as the Sub would be to Sub him for Grant 10mins into the 3rd quarter and tell him not to move more than 5 metres from the goal square )

.

Where does this happen.

With the modern game how can you possibly have a spectator in the goal square.

Bulldog Joe

21-05-2011, 09:38 AM

I doubt they are going to pick wood - he hasnt played since 10 minutes into round 1 -- not even in the reserves

I know it is splitting hairs but his injury did occur very late in the Round 1 game.

Mantis

21-05-2011, 10:01 AM

( the only way I would use Higgins as the Sub would be to Sub him for Grant 10mins into the 3rd quarter and tell him not to move more than 5 metres from the goal square )

This is one of the strangest things you have posted on this forum.... And there has been quite a few to choose from.

Stack or Moles for me... probably Stack seeing as though he is the late replacement.

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 11:12 AM

This is one of the strangest things you have posted on this forum.... And there has been quite a few to choose from.

Why would it be strange to give a small forward a specific crumbing only role close to goal ?

using Higgins as the Sub would have to be for a specific tactical role

If you think my posts are " strange " well thats your opinion , if you have a valid counter point to any of my posts please do so from an analytical point of view , not from your personal point of view .

Labeling my post as " strange " is not a valid or analytical counter point to using a Sub small forward in a specific crumbing only role close to goal

.

Mantis

21-05-2011, 11:19 AM

Why would it be strange to give a small forward a specific crumbing only role close to goal ?

using Higgins as the Sub would have to be for a specific tactical role

If you think my posts are " strange " well thats your opinion , if you have a valid counter point to any of my posts please do so from an analytical point of view , not from your personal point of view .

Labeling my post as " strange " is not a valid or analytical counter point to using a Sub small forward in a specific crumbing only role close to goal

.

Why would you limit a mobile player from moving just 5m from the goal square?

Higgins is not a crumbing player, he is a creative half forward who is able to move up the ground in order to gain possession and then move closer to goal when the opportunity arises....No player in the modern game is anchored to the goal square and especially not someone of Higgins talent.

And in your theory if Higgins is to be anchored to the square is he to follow his man when he runs off?

Rocco Jones

21-05-2011, 11:36 AM

( the only way I would use Higgins as the Sub would be to Sub him for Grant 10mins into the 3rd quarter and tell him not to move more than 5 metres from the goal square - EDIT for those that need a little more information this would be a specific crumbing only role close to goal )

I love the passion you bring to this site and how you don't just agree with everything but that comment is just so out of touch with the modern game mate. It would have a defender's dream, even an immobile key defender could use that role to run off their opponent and create rebound. Not to mention that Higgins isn't a natural crumber.

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 11:37 AM

Why would you limit a mobile player from moving just 5m from the goal square?

Higgins is not a crumbing player, he is a creative half forward who is able to move up the ground in order to gain possession and then move closer to goal when the opportunity arises....No player in the modern game is anchored to the goal square and especially not someone of Higgins talent.

And in your theory if Higgins is to be anchored to the square is he to follow his man when he runs off?

Again your missing the point, this thread is about the Sub , my post is about using the Sub tactically, it's not about a particular players ability. Using Higgins as the Sub small forward in a specific crumbing only role for the last part of the 3rd quarter and the 4th is a specific tactical role to exploit tiring tall defenders, end of story. Yes, as you have stated he is a creative player but he is also short on form and recovering from a groin injury. Confining him to a small area also means that the opposition have to make decision to keep a tall or small defender with him . Tactically I would have no problem with him staying put if his opponent moves away , again keep in mind this the last part of the 3rd quarter and the 4th, John Worsfold will be aware that if they turn the ball over at the top of the 50 we will have an unmarked target in the goal square. Is that enough information or do you need more ?

.

Rocco Jones

21-05-2011, 11:48 AM

Again your missing the point, this thread is about the Sub , my post is about using the Sub tactically, it's not about a particular players ability. Using Higgins as the Sub small forward in a specific crumbing only role for the last part of the 3rd quarter and the 4th is a specific tactical role to exploit tiring tall defenders, end of story. Yes, as you have stated he is a creative player but he is also short on form and recovering from a groin injury. Confining him to a small area also means that the opposition have to make decision to keep a tall or small defender with him . Tactically I would have no problem with him staying put if his opponent moves away , again keep in mind this the last part of the 3rd quarter and the 4th, John Worsfold will be aware that if they turn the ball over at the top of the 50 we will have an unmarked target in the goal square. Is that enough information or do you need more ?

.

My girlfriend plays footy and you remind me of her coach. He plays his 6 forwards inside 50 no matter what and thinks he is a genius whenever they kick a goal. Reality is that it frees up 3-4 of the opposition to play up the ground and actually get the ball. When her team actually gets the ball, the defenders have enough time to run back anyway. It works 1 time in 10.

AFL is about a million times faster and more highly skilled than the VWFL but that just makes the deep forward idea even more absurd. The Eagles would have a guy hanging off Higgins in that role. When we have the ball, they will mark him tightly and when they are about to spread, he would be freed up due to Higgins being confined to the goal square. What you're theory and the mentioned coach fails to understand is that defenders are actually allowed to move.

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 12:19 PM

My girlfriend plays footy and you remind me of her coach. He plays his 6 forwards inside 50 no matter what and thinks he is a genius whenever they kick a goal. Reality is that it frees up 3-4 of the opposition to play up the ground and actually get the ball. When her team actually gets the ball, the defenders have enough time to run back anyway. It works 1 time in 10.

AFL is about a million times faster than the VWFL but that just makes the deep forward idea even more absurd. The Eagles would have a guy hanging off Higgins in that role. When we have the ball, they will mark him tightly and when they are about to spread, he would be freed up due to Higgins being confined to the goal square. What you're theory and the mentioned coach fails to understand is that defenders are actually allowed to move.

You started this thread and your missing the point as well !!!!!!!!!!!!

Roll the tape over some of our games so far this year , how many time's late in the 3rd quarter and the 4th have we had an empty forward line , no targets , none , nada , zip , not one player .

As I said , Higgins is short on form and recovering from a groin injury, if we can get two or three goals from Grant by HT, Sub him for Higgins 10mins into the 3rd

OK, are you following me so far , big ground , out of form, recovering from injury, Subbed on 10mins into the third

John Worsfold can see we have made a change , will be able to quickly deduce that it is a double edged sword , yes he can get a defender free but they just can't afford to turn the ball over as we will have an unmarked player in the goal square

OK, are you still with me , our " free " player is in the goal square , John Worsfolds " free " player is limited by how " free " he is , if the ball is turned over and we get it to Higgins before his man doubles back , we score . What ever happens his opponent will be covering more territory , a tired player makes mistakes .

If all we get out of this tactical use of the Sub is two cheap goals , and those two goals are the winning margin , well you do the math

.

Rocco Jones

21-05-2011, 12:37 PM

You started this thread and your missing the point as well !!!!!!!!!!!!

Roll the tape over some of our games so far this year , how many time's late in the 3rd quarter and the 4th have we had an empty forward line , no targets , none , nada , zip , not one player .

As I said , Higgins is short on form and recovering from a groin injury, if we can get two or three goals from Grant by HT, Sub him for Higgins 10mins into the 3rd

OK, are you following me so far , big ground , out of form, recovering from injury, Subbed on 10mins into the third

John Worsfold can see we have made a change , will be able to quickly deduce that it is a double edged sword , yes he can get a defender free but they just can't afford to turn the ball over as we will have an unmarked player in the goal square

OK, are you still with me , our " free " player is in the goal square , John Worsfolds " free " player is limited by how " free " he is , if the ball is turned over and we get it to Higgins before his man doubles back , we score . What ever happens his opponent will be covering more territory , a tired player makes mistakes .

If all we get out of this tactical use of the Sub is two cheap goals , and those two goals are the winning margin , well you do the math

.

Wow. You are so out of touch with the modern game it is amazing. This is like arguing with a man who is convinced that the world is flat.

Every coach would be overjoyed at your tactical. Yeah Higgins might get a cheap goal but do you understand how important rebound is? If he was glued to the spot you are staying, his opponent would easily get 15 touches per quarter. Not only would they get the ball at will, they will have all the time and space in the world. Your tactic would be inane at any ground but at Subi it especially takes the cake.

I try to be tolerant and hate when posters have a go at others but for someone who so clearly struggles to get the game to keep on saying others are missing the point I will make an exception.

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 12:54 PM

Wow. You are so out of touch with the modern game it is amazing. This is like arguing with a man who is convinced that the world is flat.

Every coach would be overjoyed at your tactical. Yeah Higgins might get a cheap goal but do you understand how important rebound is? If he was glued to the spot you are staying, his opponent would easily get 15 touches per quarter. Not only would they get the ball at will, they will have all the time and space in the world. Your tactic would be inane at any ground but at Subi it especially takes the cake.

I try to be tolerant and hate when posters have a go at others but for someone who so clearly struggles to get the game to keep on saying others are missing the point I will make an exception.

OK, remind me again , you started this thread to discuss the use of the Sub.

I discuss the use of the Sub re Higgins as a small forward 10mins into the third and the 4th

Somehow you think I mean for the whole game

You have completely missed the point , neither of you have given a valid or analytical counterpoint

I,m moving on now

back to my original post , my original valid and analytical post

As I said in the other thread , Wood this week is the most obvious Sub , not quite back to match fitness but fit enough to cover an early injury. Tactically I would Sub Grant off at HT , then rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield/ Forward Pocket

.

bornadog

21-05-2011, 12:59 PM

You started this thread and your missing the point as well !!!!!!!!!!!!

Roll the tape over some of our games so far this year , how many time's late in the 3rd quarter and the 4th have we had an empty forward line , no targets , none , nada , zip , not one player .

As I said , Higgins is short on form and recovering from a groin injury, if we can get two or three goals from Grant by HT, Sub him for Higgins 10mins into the 3rd

OK, are you following me so far , big ground , out of form, recovering from injury, Subbed on 10mins into the third

John Worsfold can see we have made a change , will be able to quickly deduce that it is a double edged sword , yes he can get a defender free but they just can't afford to turn the ball over as we will have an unmarked player in the goal square

OK, are you still with me , our " free " player is in the goal square , John Worsfolds " free " player is limited by how " free " he is , if the ball is turned over and we get it to Higgins before his man doubles back , we score . What ever happens his opponent will be covering more territory , a tired player makes mistakes .

If all we get out of this tactical use of the Sub is two cheap goals , and those two goals are the winning margin , well you do the math

.

Think about this way. If the forwards stay at home, what happens to their opponents, ie the defenders from the other team. They press forward and out number our backline and then its goodbye Charlie. In the modern game the forwards are forced to follow their man up the ground but be quick enough to get back to the forward half when we win the ball.

The Underdog

21-05-2011, 12:59 PM

back to my original post , my original valid and analytical post

As I said in the other thread , Wood this week is the most obvious Sub , not quite back to match fitness but fit enough to cover an early injury. Tactically I would Sub Grant off at HT , then rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield/ Forward Pocket

.

Wood hasn't played forward at all in the past, nor much midfield. I agree he's likely to be subbed on or off (given no injuries, possibly for Stack who can play a similiar role) but I'd be keeping him in the backline where he is comfortable and helps give us run. I'm not sure he'll be ready for a midfield role, particularly at Subiaco.
Also as per your previous post if Grant has 2 or 3 goals by HT, I'm leaving him out there.

Mofra

21-05-2011, 01:18 PM

Think about this way. If the forwards stay at home, what happens to their opponents, ie the defenders from the other team. They press forward and out number our backline and then its goodbye Charlie. In the modern game the forwards are forced to follow their man up the ground but be quick enough to get back to the forward half when we win the ball.
That's not the only issue - the sub needs to exploit a tactical advantage.

The advantage they have is fresh legs - they need to be able to rotate through the middle (and/or the high forward/runnign HB role) and burn their opponent off with workrate. Having a sub sit in a pocket would be the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

bornadog

21-05-2011, 01:22 PM

That's not the only issue - the sub needs to exploit a tactical advantage.

The advantage they have is fresh legs - they need to be able to rotate through the middle (and/or the high forward/runnign HB role) and burn their opponent off with workrate. Having a sub sit in a pocket would be the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

Yes agree, who do you suggest for the West Coast Match?

Bulldog4life

21-05-2011, 01:26 PM

Stack is my choice. I would be surprised if it is another player.

Ghost Dog

21-05-2011, 02:44 PM

Watching the game last night Blues V Cats, the Sub seems to just sit on the bench, and wondered if they should be on the bike, or stretching. Getting ready to enter the flow of the game. any sports science people here want to comment?

westdog54

21-05-2011, 02:47 PM

OK, remind me again , you started this thread to discuss the use of the Sub.

I discuss the use of the Sub re Higgins as a small forward 10mins into the third and the 4th

Somehow you think I mean for the whole game

You have completely missed the point , neither of you have given a valid or analytical counterpoint

I,m moving on now
.
I'm not.

Three Posters now have given perfectly reasoanble, rational and valid arguments as to why your 'tactic' is a disaster waiting to happen. Sitting a bloke in the goalsquare waiting for a turnover is under 10's stuff and would allow the Eagles defence to dictate the play at will when they have the ball in their hands.

Not only that, but what happens, as has happened to other teams quite a few times this year, an injury is picked up in the 1st quarter. A sub, whilst intended primarily as a burst player, needs to have the flexibility to run out a game. Higgins would end up as a passenger.

Your proposed 'tactical' use of the sub is pure folly.

azabob

21-05-2011, 04:00 PM

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 04:13 PM

I'm not.

Three Posters now have given perfectly reasoanble, rational and valid arguments as to why your 'tactic' is a disaster waiting to happen. Sitting a bloke in the goalsquare waiting for a turnover is under 10's stuff and would allow the Eagles defence to dictate the play at will when they have the ball in their hands.

Not only that, but what happens, as has happened to other teams quite a few times this year, an injury is picked up in the 1st quarter. A sub, whilst intended primarily as a burst player, needs to have the flexibility to run out a game. Higgins would end up as a passenger.

Your proposed 'tactical' use of the sub is pure folly.

And you have missed the point as well , if any of you actually read my original post you quite plainly see that I didn't want to use Higgins as the Sub , that particular section of my post is in brackets, I only re-posted as you all failed to understand , it would only be a tactical Sub IF you used Higgins as the Sub in that situation, could it work- yes but there are limitations, the limitations are obvious

My original post still stands

As I said in the other thread and in this thread, Wood this week is the most obvious Sub , not quite back to match fitness but fit enough to cover an early injury. Tactically I would Sub Grant off at HT , then rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield/ Forward Pocket

Why would you Sub Grant at HT ?
To make sure he's fresh against Hawthorn

Why would you rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield / Forward Pocket ?
Wood on the flank gives us leg speed , at FP gives us leg speed, he should be fit enough to run out 2 quarters, he should be fit enough to cover a 1st quarter injury. Sherman rotating through the 2 positions also gives us leg speed , he has an eye for goal , also gives us a chance to drag a player like Embley up the ground

.

Greystache

21-05-2011, 04:48 PM

I think there's only one person who's missed the point in this thread, and they continue to.

Anyway, along with the suggested 1970's style tactical use of the sub, I think we should also focus on kicking it long to the ruckman, never kicking across goal in defence, and not handballing in the backline.

"I,m" having flashbacks to my first game of under 10's.

westdog54

21-05-2011, 05:02 PM

And you have missed the point as well , if any of you actually read my original post you quite plainly see that I didn't want to use Higgins as the Sub , that particular section of my post is in brackets, I only re-posted as you all failed to understand , it would only be a tactical Sub IF you used Higgins as the Sub in that situation, could it work- yes but there are limitations, the limitations are obvious

My original post still stands

As I said in the other thread and in this thread, Wood this week is the most obvious Sub , not quite back to match fitness but fit enough to cover an early injury. Tactically I would Sub Grant off at HT , then rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield/ Forward Pocket

Why would you Sub Grant at HT ?
To make sure he's fresh against Hawthorn

Why would you rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield / Forward Pocket ?
Wood on the flank gives us leg speed , at FP gives us leg speed, he should be fit enough to run out 2 quarters, he should be fit enough to cover a 1st quarter injury. Sherman rotating through the 2 positions also gives us leg speed , he has an eye for goal , also gives us a chance to drag a player like Embley up the ground

.

The way I see it, if you weren't serious about the Higgins scenario, you wouldn't have included it. You did, and it was rightly rubbished.

As to your other 'tactic'. If you want Grant to be Fresh against Hawthorn then you don't take him to Perth to play half a bloody game. And you'd take off a leading forward to put on a running defender who is not suited to the forward line?

Its getting worse as we go.

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 05:36 PM

I,m re-posting this as apparently some people are blind

As I said in the other thread and in this thread, Wood this week is the most obvious Sub , not quite back to match fitness but fit enough to cover an early injury. Tactically I would Sub Grant off at HT , then rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield/ Forward Pocket

Why would you Sub Grant at HT ?
To make sure he's fresh against Hawthorn

Why would you rotate Wood and Sherman through Midfield / Forward Pocket ?
Wood on the flank gives us leg speed , at FP gives us leg speed, he should be fit enough to run out 2 quarters, he should be fit enough to cover a 1st quarter injury. Sherman rotating through the 2 positions also gives us leg speed , he has an eye for goal , also gives us a chance to drag a player like Embley up the ground

.

The Coon Dog

21-05-2011, 05:50 PM

^^^^

Is there really a need to post in that manner?

Clearly you're not getting your point across, resorting to child like actions is not aiding your cause.

Ghost Dog

21-05-2011, 06:03 PM

Subs are constantly on the move, especially during the quarter time / half time break.

Not sure bob. they weren't last night.

LostDoggy

21-05-2011, 07:21 PM

I like Moles as the sub

azabob

21-05-2011, 07:25 PM

^^^^

Is there really a need to post in that manner?

Clearly you're not getting your point across, resorting to child like actions is not aiding your cause.

Wow, the bold text is a lot bigger on a computer screen compared to an ipod touch. :D

Mofra

21-05-2011, 07:25 PM

I,m re-posting this as apparently some people are blind
Ok. People who disagree with you are blind. Fine.

Moving on - it really does need to be one of the last picked to be our sub (and someone who can play multiple positions), we should not be disrupting the best 18 or so for (injury permitting) a quarter and a bit of run (which is when teams with no injuries sub players on - not at halftime). It also needs to be structured in a way that maximises the advantage of fresh legs - a running position in the midfield or off the HB line.

Stack would be the likely candidate this week, especially with Wood likely to take his role as a running defender, Hargrave in the side as another running defender, and Picken & Murphy possible backmen this week (match-ups permitting).

chef

21-05-2011, 07:26 PM

azabob

21-05-2011, 07:27 PM

Not sure bob. they weren't last night.

I was at the game last night and was behind the bench, they appeared to run up and down the boundry line during the quarters and kicking drills during the breaks.

But it is interesting point you raise, didn't Jose Romero use to run laps of the telstra dome carpark before the game to get "warmed up"?

chef

21-05-2011, 07:29 PM

Rocco Jones

21-05-2011, 09:05 PM

I want to put the brain drain that is arguing with W-D to bed but just a few final points.

1- Even if your under 10s (spot on call WD54) tactic was valid, it would go against the strengths that a sub can bring. You're 15 metres out from goal zone role doesn't require much energy and would be more suited to playing just about 100% TOG whereas all subs, all matter how bad they have been, have all bought energy in against tired legs (some just run around like headless chooks).

2- If a player has to resort to a role with such little mobility they a/ aren't fit enough to be playing b/ if it's part of rotations, they should just be on bench c/ only a resort if we have 5 injuries and it goes to the least injured player.

3- I think your idea would have some merit if not for it being so extreme. Not moving 5 metres from the goal square stuff just won't happen. Look you might be an utter genius but all the other coach's would be overjoyed at the tactic. I would like us to actually think of using a small forward as our sub. With the energy advantage, they will be able to run back and add a deeper option and also be part of the press.

One thing you're get some cheap goals theory is missing is that you don't have to sacrifice a player to the goalsquare, they just have to be a bit deeper than everyone else.

You bake us for not making valid points and use your made up ideal scenario as fact. The sub gets cheap goals as his opponent has continuous brain explosions wondering whether to defend or attack.

Rocco Jones

21-05-2011, 09:08 PM

So what if we sub Grant at half time and then get an injury 10 minutes in to the third quarter?

To me you have to hold onto the sub as long as possible.

YOU JUST DON,T GET !T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said there would be no injuries' we won,t have to worry about that.

Worsfold will be so confused by what he thinks is stupid but is really genius that he won,t be able to do anything.

Wood' Higgins' AND Sherman will kick heaps of cheapies and their defenders will have no idea what to do.

READ MY POSTS!!!

Something like that anyway.

Desipura

21-05-2011, 09:17 PM

YOU JUST DON,T GET !T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said there would be no injuries' we won,t have to worry about that.

Worsfold will be so confused by what he thinks is stupid but is really genius that he won,t be able to do anything.

Wood' Higgins' AND Sherman will kick heaps of cheapies and their defenders will have no idea what to do.

READ MY POSTS!!!

Something like that anyway.
What is it with you and Westdog and the bold posts?

Rocco Jones

21-05-2011, 09:18 PM

What is it with you and Westdog and the bold posts?

We both struggle with apostrophes as well.

Greystache

21-05-2011, 09:25 PM

YOU JUST DON,T GET !T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said there would be no injuries' we won,t have to worry about that.

Worsfold will be so confused by what he thinks is stupid but is really genius that he won,t be able to do anything.

Wood' Higgins' AND Sherman will kick heaps of cheapies and their defenders will have no idea what to do.

READ MY POSTS!!!

Something like that anyway.

I think you're Norm Smith medal sweep makes more sense than this thread, yet strangely I love them both. :eek:

Plus any post containing the recently invented commaostrophe has to be worth bonus points!

EasternWest

21-05-2011, 09:59 PM

We both struggle with apostrophes as well.

You know, I nearly fell off my chair laughing then.

This thread FTW.

LostDoggy

22-05-2011, 08:17 AM

There,s a lot of ego on this mostly brilliant forum sometimes.

A poor suggestion was made, and he was rightfully ripped into and became defensive. But blood was drawn and in fly the vultures to pick at the carcass. It seems to happen a bit where particular posters get targeted. It probably went far enough a page ago. If you have kids and one of them does something wrong do you get the rest of the family around to point and laugh? Actually sounds like 'leading teams'...

All said, i am a huge fan of the commapostraphy' Molesy for the sub' he,s the perfect fit.

GVGjr

22-05-2011, 10:02 AM

All,

I have cleaned off a few contributions and would ask everyone to make sure the thread stays on the subject.

Rocco Jones

22-05-2011, 11:44 AM

Before I Die

22-05-2011, 01:27 PM

Plus any post containing the recently invented commaostrophe has to be worth bonus points!

All said, i am a huge fan of the commapostraphy' Molesy for the sub' he,s the perfect fit.

We need to get some consistency in our spelling conventions.

I suggest we adopt ,commostrophe, as the accepted spelling.

Re the sub; I think Stack will be our sub this week, though I believe Moles is the better fit.

GVGjr

22-05-2011, 02:30 PM

Good posts Rocco fully agree.

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showpost.php?p=215546&postcount=1

The Underdog

22-05-2011, 04:29 PM

Well, it's Moles, not surprising. They seem to like him in the role and given his run and flexibility not the worst choice.

Rocco Jones

22-05-2011, 04:31 PM

Well, it's Moles, not surprising. They seem to like him in the role and given his run and flexibility not the worst choice.

Yep, I think his style and spot in the hierarchy suit the role. This is his 3rd game from 4 were he has started as a sub.

westdog54

22-05-2011, 09:03 PM

I actually agree with all this.

As I mentioned earlier, I really don't like the gang approach and hammering someone who makes a poor suggestion. It's very elitist and weak. I'm sorry for my part in it.

Its one thing to hammer someone who's making a poor suggestion.

Its Quite another thing to stick to the same poor suggestion so wholeheartedly that you're embarrassing yourself.

LostDoggy

22-05-2011, 09:55 PM

Hill to come back as the Sub against Hawthorn - he had a good hitout for Williamstown , Moles can go to the bench

.

westdog54

22-05-2011, 10:01 PM

Hill to come back as the Sub against Hawthorn - he had a good hitout for Williamstown , Moles can go to the bench

.

Sounds ok to me. Who do you bring in for Hill?

I haven't seen the game so it wouldn't be my place to offer up any suggestions but it sounds like the candidates are plentiful.

LostDoggy

23-05-2011, 07:13 PM

Sounds ok to me. Who do you bring in for Hill?

I haven't seen the game so it wouldn't be my place to offer up any suggestions but it sounds like the candidates are plentiful.

Do you mean who do we drop to bring in Hill ? Higgins out , Moles and Howard to the bench , Hill as the Sub

I would have liked to bring in Djerrkura for Higgins but he had a quiet game for Williamstown

With Howard on the bench and Hill as the Sub , it will just a matter of timing the swap , Addison would have been the preferred player to come in on the bench but he's injured ( he may pass a late medical )

.

westdog54

23-05-2011, 08:13 PM

Do you mean who do we drop to bring in Hill ? Higgins out , Moles and Howard to the bench , Hill as the Sub

I would have liked to bring in Djerrkura for Higgins but he had a quiet game for Williamstown

With Howard on the bench and Hill as the Sub , it will just a matter of timing the swap , Addison would have been the preferred player to come in on the bench but he's injured ( he may pass a late medical )

.

By my count that's one out and two in, if you're bringing Howard in.

Don't get me wrong, They both are good ins but one more needs to come out if Howard plays.

LostDoggy

23-05-2011, 09:46 PM

By my count that's one out and two in, if you're bringing Howard in.

Don't get me wrong, They both are good ins but one more needs to come out if Howard plays.

yes, it's not a complete swap, I was just doing a possible rotation if Hill comes back as the Sub , who else is dropped well that's a question for the Match Committee thread

So just to appease you I,ll shorten the list : Higgins is replaced by Hill ( Sub ) , Moles is moved to the bench

.

westdog54

23-05-2011, 09:57 PM

yes, it's not a complete swap, I was just doing a possible rotation if Hill comes back as the Sub , who else is dropped well that's a question for the Match Committee thread

So just to appease you I,ll shorten the list : Higgins is replaced by Hill ( Sub ) , Moles is moved to the bench

.

My last post wasn't a crack at you, far from it. Hill and Howard would be good ins and I think that Hill would make a good sub. I just haven't seen the game to judge who should make way. I can't see us only making one change.

Rocco Jones

26-05-2011, 08:37 PM

DJ is my early pick this week, although I think it could be a good way to get Sam Reid back into the fold.

Resisting temptation to have a sub sweep by the way.

Greystache

26-05-2011, 08:57 PM

Please Rocco if you,re going to post in this thread each week it's only fair you find a way to fit in a commaostrophe. :D

Rocco Jones

26-05-2011, 10:11 PM

Please Rocco if you,re going to post in this thread each week it's only fair you find a way to fit in a commaostrophe. :D

I,m sorry

LostDoggy

26-05-2011, 10:36 PM

Please Rocco if you,re going to post in this thread each week it's only fair you find a way to fit in a commaostrophe. :D

It,s actually commostrophe ;)

It will be interesting what the plan will be to use the Sub against Hawthorn, from the extended bench named it,s possible that Hudson would be cut out , a bench of two mobile players and a ruckman would restrict the rotations,Williams and Jones will have to help Minson, to keep us mobile and with a flexible Sub it could be

Sherman, Moles, Reid , ( Sub ) Hill

.

Rocco Jones

27-05-2011, 07:39 PM

Here is my weekly sub preview for our game for the Hawks.

Howard- I'm not as anti first gamer as sub as most but they need to a burst type and it doesn't seem like Howard is one of those.

Wallis- His debut as a sub was pretty ugly but I think we should not have thrown him straight into the square at the start of the last quarter. I think he has attributes suiting the role however there are other options this week and a full game would be best for him.

Higgins- Struggled big time last week but the only reason I would start him as a sub is if his fitness needs it and if that's the case, he should not play.

Liberatore- I mentioned last week that I think he could be suited to the role but we should wait for a week were he needs a rest. We also need him intensity, pretty sad considering he is a first year player.

Hill- His versatility and 'impact player' type qualities lend himself to the role however due to our issues with depth and speed, we probably need those qualities for the whole game.

Moles- Suited to the role but I think 4 turns out of the 5 is way too much.

Sherman- Probably the most suited to the role on the list but we need his speed and he is probably 'too good' to be a sub.

DJ- I know he is an emergency but would be my 2nd choice if a late in.

Reid- Winner, winner, chicken dinner. While he isn't the 'typical' sub (that doesn't sound right!), I'm going down the more than one way to skin a cat path. I want him as sub for two reasons.

1/ I think it's a sound long term decision. It might not suit us purely for the 4 points but he it's his first game back from his injury issues and his fitness is obviously going to struggle with that. I think the shorter TOG would be a good way to ease him in.

2/ He influence the game coming in with fresh legs and adding his ability in a contest. Would really suit a tight, contested game which we will hopefully be aiming for after last week.

My doubts over the sub role benefits for Reid are similar to Libba though. As much as it might help his fitness, the sub rule also needs the play to be pretty much to have 100% TOG when they come on. Perhaps starting and coming on and off in bursts before going off for the sub would be more beneficial. Still, I'm sticking with him as sub!

Maddog37

27-05-2011, 07:49 PM

I cannot fathom the obsession with who subs or not. What does it matter other than dream team??

Rocco Jones

27-05-2011, 07:55 PM

I cannot fathom the obsession with who subs or not. What does it matter other than dream team??

Heathen!

Maddog37

27-05-2011, 08:23 PM

Ha ha sorry Rocco. You must admit you have too much spare time if you can spend so much energy deliberating on the sub each week!!!

bornadog

27-05-2011, 08:36 PM

Reid for this week.

LostDoggy

27-05-2011, 09:40 PM

The Bulldogs Bite

27-05-2011, 09:55 PM

I'd rather see Reid get a full game to show something, rather than give him 30 minutes to try and 'hold' his spot.

I'd go with Hill as the sub for this week.

westdog54

27-05-2011, 09:55 PM

Well, I got the bench lineup right

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showpost.php?p=217362&postcount=60

I,m sticking with Hill as the Sub , his disposal efficiency so far is above 75% and he is fit enough to cover an early injury

A bench of Sherman, Moles and Reid gives us two midfield rotations and a defensive rotation

.

Good Call. Hill has that combination of versatility and fitness that's needed for the sub role.

Also good to see you're sticking with your commostrophes;)

Mantis

27-05-2011, 09:57 PM

A bench of Sherman, Moles and Reid gives us two midfield rotations and a defensive rotation

Who of this 3 gives us the defensive option?

Is it just lucky dip?

LostDoggy

27-05-2011, 10:38 PM

Who of this 3 gives us the defensive option?

Is it just lucky dip?

Sorry Mr M , I forgot that you might read that , I should remember to post things in a way that is more straightforward , you do like things a little sharper , point taken , again

Bench : Sherman ( midfield rotation ), Moles ( midfield rotation ), Reid ( defensive rotation ) Sub - Hill

Is that better Mr M ? No, no need to thank me , I can feel the love

.

LostDoggy

29-05-2011, 11:59 AM

Well , with Moles out with a Flu shoulder or something , Gilbee comes back , the fact that he was originally dropped and only came back in as an injury replacement he gets to be the Sub against Hawthorn, so the bench could be

Bench : Sherman ( midfield rotation ), Hill ( midfield rotation ), Reid ( defensive rotation ) Sub - Gilbee

.

LostDoggy

29-05-2011, 02:51 PM

Hill but Gilbee would be a good choice too.

We need a tipping comp for subs, 3 points for picking the sub, a consolation point if yor nominee gets subbed off.

LostDoggy

05-06-2011, 02:38 PM

Jasper

05-06-2011, 04:57 PM

At this early stage I,d use Hargrave as the Sub but it depends on how ruthless Rocket and MC is , it could be that Hargrave is still in the side and Stack is back as the Sub

I,m glad that the guys who are working for their chance had a solid game for Williamstown and with about 5 OUT/ IN , it will be interesting which direction we go to give us the best balance with the Sub

.

First time I've looked at this thread but anyone raised the idea that perhaps the best sub (apart from someone who could play anywhere), is someone with great kicking skills when not under pressure. In the 4ht qtr the game opens up, so in the past I reckon a guy like Eagle would have made a great sub. Perhaps now it might be Gilbee??

bornadog

05-06-2011, 05:57 PM

First time I've looked at this thread but anyone raised the idea that perhaps the best sub (apart from someone who could play anywhere), is someone with great kicking skills when not under pressure. In the 4ht qtr the game opens up, so in the past I reckon a guy like Eagle would have made a great sub. Perhaps now it might be Gilbee??

Hawthorn used Breust this week and he came on and kicked three in the last plus dished one off and the Hawks overran Freo after trailing by 26 points. Breust is a first year player and along with Savage have both been good as subs.

Desipura

06-06-2011, 09:17 AM

Hawthorn used Breust this week and he came on and kicked three in the last plus dished one off and the Hawks overran Freo after trailing by 26 points. Breust is a first year player and along with Savage have both been good as subs.

Who was the rookie that Hawthorn offered us for Hill?

LostDoggy

05-07-2011, 06:31 PM

It will be interesting which strategy we use in regards to the Sub this week , Howard Gilbee and Barlow are the three I,m looking at . For mine there is a place in the side for both Howard and Gilbee , we will need to be clean with our kicking against Carlton so Howard to start , Gilbee on the bench , Barlow as the Sub he has the tank to cover an early injury and if he comes on at the start of the 3rd quarter gives us a fresh mobile tall who can be rotated back or forward depending on matchups

.

Rocco Jones

05-07-2011, 07:34 PM

I really don't think Barlow suits playing as a sub as it takes away his biggest advantage, his elite running. The sub rule is suited to burst players who might struggle with endurance, Barlow is the opposite.

When it comes to this week's sub, play it again Sam.

Hotdog60

05-07-2011, 07:42 PM

LostDoggy

16-07-2011, 11:46 AM

Well , this week I was keen on Addison being the Sub but it looks like it,s a 50/50 between Reid and Hill . North Melbourne are likely to use MacMillan as the Sub at the start of the 3rd quarter the 18 year old works hard to find space , does take some time to make decisions and has a habit of taking the soft option of sideways or backwards , if he does find some space he is a good user of the ball into the 50 and has racked up a few stats with goal assists . I think Hill could play a similar role as the Sub , find space out wide and find a target in the 50 , to tick all the boxes he has to work harder on covering more space and putting more pressure on his opponent

.

Hotdog60

16-07-2011, 11:53 AM

Rocco Jones

16-07-2011, 12:07 PM

I would have Reid as the Sub and Hill to start on the ground. If Josh can't get he's act together then he can be Sub out for Reid who has more energy about him (Reid's first time at Sub) than what Hill did last week.

Also Reid's physicality at the contest when the opposition maybe getting tired maybe a plus for us.

Yep, I agree. Also, if Hooper really struggles to get into it he is another clear sub out possibility. I really don't want to count my chickens and all that but if we are doing well, perhaps subbing out Hall to rest him for the 6 day break.

ledge

16-07-2011, 06:39 PM

I dont think we can actually pick who will be subbed off as it all depends on injury and who isnt matching up well on the day.

Hotdog60

31-07-2011, 08:56 AM

I was giving this some thought after watching Rocket's press meeting yesterday.

I think Cooney would make the perfect Sub for the rest of the year, his knee needs to be managed so he could benefit from less game time. When he was Sub earlier he had a lot of impact coming on and being the elite player he can pick up the tempo better than most.

We then put one of the younger players in his role to learn the trade, Cooney can watch his replacement and coach him from the bench to help bring them along.

Rocket said they were looking at overseas to see if there is an answer but looked doubtful, if in case of injury early in the game Cooney is a reasonable replacement if needed.

Thoughts

LostDoggy

31-07-2011, 10:41 AM

The biggest problem with Cooney being the Sub is that he would have to cover an early injury , he has already shown that while if his patella injury has settled he can play a full game but he has also shown that the risk of his knee swelling to the extent he loses full movement is very high, its a balancing act the medical staff are working hard on . To be realistic you would say Cooney has only 3 years left in his knee , if by being the permanent Sub at the expense of blooding some young players and young Adam has a relatively pain free 3 years I would vote yes

I wish Adam and his family all the best , tough times ahead

.

LostDoggy

31-07-2011, 10:56 AM

I'd almost go with the Cooney option.

I just don't think we've got the sub thing right.

It's almost like we use it to play someone who's young and probably not worthy of a full game so to speak.

I notice that we actually seem to get towelled up by other team's subs who are more impact players and are fresh and strong.

Maybe take a look at English soccer where they often bring on gun (and often older) strikers as subs for that type of reason.