5 questions about Round #1

[GVGjr]

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

The crows have a good mix of young tall players

Davis is a promising developing key defender, and they have Talia in the SANFL also

Maric is improving in the ruck and McKernan was terrific in his 2nd game, took marks all over the ground, got his hand to the ball in the ruck - really looked an emerging type

Upforward Walker has improved but also still has massive further scope for improvement, and Tippett is still to come back into the team

So there spine appears to be on the way, but they also have some very good dangerous midfield/flank types in Dangerfield, Knights, Vince, Van Berlo, Otten etc

Mix them in with the older senior players of Johncock, Thompson, Rutten, Stevens, Porplyzia etc and you have a competitive outfit. And Tambling looked a more decisive player.

I dont know about top 4 but there is a lot to like about the way they played

Hawthorn played pretty well, the can spin it otherwise, but they were on fire in the first half and were then overrun

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

1: The sub rule is a joke. I maybe wouldn't mind it if they kept 4 interchange players and introduced a sub. But under the current format this rule will handicap teams like the dogs who rotate heavily.

2. A bit of both, they are on the improve due to the Knights building but also I think are playing a fair bit on emotion due to Hird & Bomber.

3. Hawks are better than that, surely?

4: One word YES.
It is effective for them though so they wont change under current coach.

5: The pies biggest opposition will be themselves. If they get some injuries and gain some doubt then they will slide a bit. Failing that, god help us all.

[Flamethrower]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?
Positive - Teams with only one serious injury are no longer disadvantaged, unless the injury occurs after the sub is used. eg Easton Wood. From an AFL POV, the players fatigue much quicker slowing the game by the last Q, to the point where it seems they are running in quicksand by the last quarter. This is what the AFL wanted. As yet this hasn't resulted in a huge increase in soft tissue injuries, but I think it will eventually.

Negative - Any team that has multiple injuries has even less chance of winning, as they will fatigue at a much faster rate with 0,1 or 2 on the bench when up against 3 fit I/C players. Likely to have cost Brisbane the game on Saturday.

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?
Hird has developed a game plan built around defensive structures and the natural attacking flair of his players. They will beat many better sides than us.

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?
Crows have been quietly stockpiling a heap of young talent, and were always going to rebound quickly from a disappointing 2010.

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?
Yes for the neutral fan. No for St Kilda supporters - it is called winning ugly, and with any luck could have won back to back premierships.

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?
Themselves. They are in a class of their own this year. Everyone else is playing for 2nd.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

[GVGjr]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

A mate of mine thought 2 subs and 3 interchanges would get the balance spot on.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

3. I'll keep it short and sweet. Hawthorn are overrated by the media every year, so no surprise they went into this as favourites. They also have a poor record at AAMI Stadium, they were poor on the day, thats it I think. I don't have Adelaide in the top 8, 9th-10th closely missing out.

[boydogs]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

Poor rule, getting an injury still puts you at a disadvantage, and last quarters are harder to watch.

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

Too early to say whether there is much difference in the side. They were inconsistent under Knights, but did show glimpses of that attacking ability.

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

Hawthorn just aren't that great.

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

Yep.

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

Us. I reckon we'll look back at the Essendon game in a month and say we were just warming up after an early NAB exit.

[Missing-Dog]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

I'd be interested in your thoughts about the following questions:

1) The new sub rule - What are the positive and negatives or is it just too easy to call?

2) Are Essendon a better side under Hird or has he just been given a free hit the the list development work that Knights had done?

3) Have the Crows rebuilt their playing list and playing style so quickly or were the Hawks just poor on the day?

4) Is the Saints playing style just wrecking the visual aspect of games?

5) Which team is likely to give the Pies the biggest test this season?

1. Get it wrong and it can cost you. Alot of injuries for rd 1. Game style seems different also
2. Better side for sure, plus Thomson and others sure to help
3. Crows and Hawks about the same as last year i reckon - top 8 no more
4. Stklda does well with what they got...ugly...yes
5. None really...maybe Ess

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Us. I reckon we'll look back at the Essendon game in a month and say we were just warming up after an early NAB exit.

God I hope you are right.

[Bornadog]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Didn't go far enough. It should be 2 interchange and 2 subs.

A mate of mine thought 2 subs and 3 interchanges would get the balance spot on.

I can't see what was wrong with 4 on the bench.

[GVGjr]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

I can't see what was wrong with 4 on the bench.

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

[EasternWest]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

The general consensus is that if you cop an injury early then the other team has a 4 on 3 advantage for the balance of the game and this historically has been a huge hurdle to overcome.
However, with the new rule now you sub off a player and it's still 3 on 3.

Until you get another injury.

I get what you mean, but I still don't see a benefit to the sub rule. It's too soon to tell whether it's got legs or not.

And regardless what we think, it's in, so we've just got to suck it up.

[GVGjr]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

Until you get another injury.

I get what you mean, but I still don't see a benefit to the sub rule. It's too soon to tell whether it's got legs or not.

And regardless what we think, it's in, so we've just got to suck it up.

All good points and it's one of the reasons a mate of mine thinks we will have a 2nd sub within 2 seasons.

[Before I Die]

Re: 5 questions about Round #1

All good points and it's one of the reasons a mate of mine thinks we will have a 2nd sub within 2 seasons.

Back to the future!

Why not 2 subs and no interchange.

It would probably lead to a 50% reduction in the coaching panel and more man on man contests. Perhaps a visionary like Sheedy could lead the charge.