Round #2 Match Committee

[dogman]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

I thought Hill was pretty good last week in defence.

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

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

[Mantis]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

My changes are:

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

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

I thought Hill was pretty good last week in defence.

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

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

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

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

[Desipura]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

[Mantis]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

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

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

[soupman]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

That the sub rule is killing him.

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

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[comrade]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

W

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

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

[soupman]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

[Mantis]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bornadog]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

Also, we're not Collingwood.

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

[comrade]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

Mantis sums it up pretty well...

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


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

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Round #2 Match Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We actually have 5 in various stages of development.