Always Right Match Committee Rnd 10, vs North Melbourne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mantis

What we do lose is Bont's poise & kicking ability in the midfield.. Most of the inside mids mentioned are poor on the spread or working away from the clearance situation so expect lots of 'hack' kicks going our way.

---

I'm hoping Smith takes another step forward and uses his foot skills more this week. Libba is also good when he has some space.

If we're relying heavily on Dunkley and Wallis to get us inside 50, then yeah...good luck Naughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

The bottom 3 sides on the ladder are Carlton, North and GC. If we had just taken care of business vs Carlton and GC we would be 6-3 right now. Let’s hope we treat this game with the importance it deserves.

I worry about Bevo’s comments about it being a different game to past battles vs NM. We should be looking to take this game away from north by focussing pressure on their better players, not just roll the dice in head to heads. Officially worried right now.

---

We've had some dour uninspired contests over the last few years so I hope this one has us kicking a few more goals

A win against either Carlton or the Suns would have in a vastly stronger position so I guess the challenge for us is to make sure we don't play poorly against the poorer sides

A couple of tags might be in order but it's not our normal approach. Williams on Higgins is something I'd like to see and Dunkley or Liberatore on Cunnington makes sense as well

Important game for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

A couple of tags might be in order but it's not our normal approach. Williams on Higgins is something I'd like to see and Dunkley or Liberatore on Cunnington makes sense as well

---

Yeah - I know it's not our normal approach. But doing something 'different' to stress to the players the importance of this contest would be a good idea. It is easy to get up for Richmond and Geelong - we played well in both games. It is not easy to get up for 'bottom sides' (we still have a core of players who seem to believe the 2016 finals series was yesterday whenever we play a team down the bottom of the ladder) and I don't think we should be taking any chances.

Handing it over to the on-field leaders in the way we did vs Carlton is 100% not the answer.

Noted this line with curiosity from Bevo's presser; "Those four changes were no-brainers in the end as far as our philosophy goes".

Extrapolate away ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Science

Noted this line with curiosity from Bevo's presser; "Those four changes were no-brainers in the end as far as our philosophy goes".

Extrapolate away ...

---

Multi-position versatility.

Williams - back and mid
Dale - mid and forward
English - ruck and around the ground
Lipinksi - forward and inside mid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Science

Extrapolate away ...

---

I would think it has something to do with both training and match-day KPI's/measures based around pressure/skill ex/whatever it is the group is valuing....the guys who were left out have been missing them, the guys that have been selected have been hitting them...

Things like that are visible to the playing group and it enables them to feel 'positive' about the correlation between performance and selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Science

Noted this line with curiosity from Bevo's presser; "Those four changes were no-brainers in the end as far as our philosophy goes".

Extrapolate away ...

---

It’s a new philosophy, one where we take The Pie Man’s suggested changes from WOOF and just run with those.

....I’ll show myself out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Pie Man

It’s a new philosophy, one where we take The Pie Man’s suggested changes from WOOF and just run with those.

....I’ll show myself out

---

And that's fine. So if we do a little bit of low level contingency planning:

1/. What happens if Trengove (assume playing back) or Cordy gets injured?
2/. What happens if English gets injured or is having his butt handed to him by Goldstein. (And be aware, if Trengove is the answer then you also need to apply the plan for #1.
3/. What happens if Naughton gets injured (and again, be aware, if 'Naughton back' was the answer to either of the above...).

I am all happy with the changes - no trouble - but let's not kid ourselves for a second that this team is balanced or that if things go awry we have plan b.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

And that's fine. So if we do a little bit of low level contingency planning:

1/. What happens if Trengove (assume playing back) or Cordy gets injured?
2/. What happens if English gets injured or is having his butt handed to him by Goldstein. (And be aware, if Trengove is the answer then you also need to apply the plan for #1.
3/. What happens if Naughton gets injured (and again, be aware, if 'Naughton back' was the answer to either of the above...).

I am all happy with the changes - no trouble - but let's not kid ourselves for a second that this team is balanced or that if things go awry we have plan b.

---

Do we have players available at Footscray and in good enough form to better balance the side?

I think Lewis Young and Schache are players we should have considered, well at least one of two of them.

Could Dunkley be used as a key defender at a pinch if we did have to cover an injury? and of course Wood can play tall as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

Do we have players available at Footscray and in good enough form to better balance the side?

I think Lewis Young and Schache are players we should have considered, well at least one of two of them.

Could Dunkley be used as a key defender at a pinch if we did have to cover an injury? and of course Wood can play tall as well.

---

...and so it goes.

For Gowers to come out, I think either Young or Schache had to come in. Because now we are where we are...I agree 100% on the 'Wood will have to play tall' thing - he probably will/can - but this seems to be one of the things that upsets people the most.

We need a marking target to complement Naughton...but more to the point, we need a marking target for when Naughton is off resting OR if he has to go back OR if he gets injured...

Look, it *should* be OK...but match committee....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hujsh

Well for it to be an unbeaten run the likes of which has never been seen it'll have to go into next year so yes it will include a premiership.

I'd also expect one Baily to win the Coleman.

And I'd prefer Smith to win the Rising Star as the Rising Sun implies they play for GC

---

Norm Smith Smith

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

...and so it goes.

For Gowers to come out, I think either Young or Schache had to come in. Because now we are where we are...I agree 100% on the 'Wood will have to play tall' thing - he probably will/can - but this seems to be one of the things that upsets people the most.

We need a marking target to complement Naughton...but more to the point, we need a marking target for when Naughton is off resting OR if he has to go back OR if he gets injured...

Look, it *should* be OK...but match committee....

---

But do we though?

We’ve gone deliberately small before to force our mids to lower their eyes. Some of our better games were with Picken & Dickson kicking the bulk of our score.

My/The changes were closest to like for like in some form, with the idea that Trengove would play back. I know Dale doesn’t play exactly like Gowers but a different look could be beneficial. Libba spending more time in the middle (and potentially on Higgins which is a suggestion made elsewhere that I think has merit) also appeals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Pie Man

But do we though?

We’ve gone deliberately small before to force our mids to lower their eyes. Some of our better games were with Picken & Dickson kicking the bulk of our score.

My/The changes were closest to like for like in some form, with the idea that Trengove would play back. I know Dale doesn’t play exactly like Gowers but a different look could be beneficial. Libba spending more time in the middle (and potentially on Higgins which is a suggestion made elsewhere that I think has merit) also appeals.

---

I’m happy with anything and would always go with an extra runner over an extra tall - but there is a difference between a 5-minute look at a fwd group with 6xmid/small players and doing it for an extended time in the event of injury/Naughton just getting plain old beaten.

I am just trying to point out that say what you will about Gowers, he does fly at the ball in the air and plays ‘tall’...we have not really replaced him with a tall and people on here get very snippy when we kick long into a fwd line where there are no marking players...and our selected side has basically guaranteed that will happen...and lower the eyes is fine, but pressure....

Again - I’m happy enough with the changes but still think we lack balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

Again - I’m happy enough with the changes but still think we lack balance.

---

I think Bont will play tall today

Few others mentioned it - tag is a good idea. Remove their captain and a couple of others, not much going with North.
But they will probably come out swinging today so expect some lowlights to hit their KPIs.
And would rather they came out swinging, because we need a good test.
Like to see Naughton moved down back, their defence lacks pace, let Lloyd and even JJ have a go down forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

I worry about Bevo’s comments about it being a different game to past battles vs NM. We should be looking to take this game away from north by focussing pressure on their better players, not just roll the dice in head to heads. Officially worried right now.

---

He did speak about this.

The context for it being different is important too. They are taking more risky kicks through the corridor in transition. Seems like we've been planning for that. I'm very confident after watching the press conference and the side we've selected.

This is a watershed game for us, lose and be 4-6 we are gonski, if we can't beat this Norf rabble we deserve to be gonski. We have our best 22 for the year in today, lets smash them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

Again - I’m happy enough with the changes but still think we lack balance.

---

So I think its fair to say a lot of mjp fears came to light around team selection balance and if dropping Gowers, Hayes and co will actually make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

Again - I’m happy enough with the changes but still think we lack balance.

---

So I think its fair to say a lot of mjp "watch outs" came to light around team selection balance and if dropping Gowers, Hayes and co will actually make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azabob

So I think its fair to say a lot of mjp "watch outs" came to light around team selection balance and if dropping Gowers, Hayes and co will actually make a difference.

---

It was certainly noticeable. I changed my tip when I saw the team, it wasn't as catastrophic as the Carlton selections but it was noticebly unbalanced. That being said we seemed to leak the ball from stoppages far too easily so not sure if another bigger target up forward would have helped that much.

Didn’t see Cordy rucking ...or us winning 4 clearances in a row and finding English on the lead in two of those phases.

Weird game - and of course mjp raised valid concerns, the forum’s worth being part of for his insight alone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjp

This game is a non-negotiable win and to me leaving it up to our mids - who didn't bring effort against a lesser midfield in Carlton - has disaster written all over it.

---

Well this, unfortunately, turned out to be spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chef

4 good changes. Bevos been reading woof.

---

Sadly missed the one by MJP that said it wouldn't make a dif.