| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Sort of forgot Elliott was even playing last week, to be honest. Did he get much of the ball after he came on?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
the fuzz
Fuzz loves Bruzz
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Oh well. C'mon Benny Sinclair, tear it up
Dids back in for the GF!! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There's a message in that for Cameron Wood.
The message appears to be the following: He can't be the first ruck while Jolly is playing. He can't be the second ruck while Dawes is playing and if Dawes isn't playing, the Club would rather not bother with a second ruck than play Wood.
That seems to be just about that for his time at Collingwood, you'd think. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You don't hear that sentiment very often. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | There's a message in that for Cameron Wood.
The message appears to be the following: He can't be the first ruck while Jolly is playing. He can't be the second ruck while Dawes is playing and if Dawes isn't playing, the Club would rather not bother with a second ruck than play Wood.
That seems to be just about that for his time at Collingwood, you'd think. |
I don't think it's Wood's fault or even a real indictment on his skill as a player that he hasn't been named. I guess it's just about structure: in the modern game few teams can afford to have two not-particularly-mobile ruckmen in the line-up at once, and Buckley doesn't consider Collingwood to be one of them.
Unless we're aiming to trade for a readymade ruckman this year, Wood would still be required next year for insurance (at least until Ceglar and/or Witts are ready).
And don't forget, if we win tomorrow night and Jolly gets injured, Wood will almost certainly be in the 22 on grand final day.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Sort of surprised to see no Wood in the emergencies. Wonder what we'll do if Dawes doesn't come up? |
Wood has travelled to Sydney with the group so could still be a surprise inclusion.
We'd cop a fine that's all.
Still his presence is probably more about keeping Sydney guessing on the fitness of Dawes.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Stable line up.
Didak's (first half) skills will be missed.
Who is sub then?
Elliot or Sinclair?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Either/or, I'd imagine. Probably lean towards Elliott because of Sinclair's comparative experience.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | There's a message in that for Cameron Wood.
The message appears to be the following: He can't be the first ruck while Jolly is playing. He can't be the second ruck while Dawes is playing and if Dawes isn't playing, the Club would rather not bother with a second ruck than play Wood.
That seems to be just about that for his time at Collingwood, you'd think. |
I don't think it's Wood's fault or even a real indictment on his skill as a player that he hasn't been named. I guess it's just about structure: in the modern game few teams can afford to have two not-particularly-mobile ruckmen in the line-up at once, and Buckley doesn't consider Collingwood to be one of them.
Unless we're aiming to trade for a readymade ruckman this year, Wood would still be required next year for insurance (at least until Ceglar and/or Witts are ready).
And don't forget, if we win tomorrow night and Jolly gets injured, Wood will almost certainly be in the 22 on grand final day. |
Not an indictment on Wood at all. He's just not a forward/ruck. The Dawes role has little rucking to it. Of course we'd be more likely to replace him with a forward than a first ruck. We can make do for the short time Jolly is resting. Play Wood, and we've got a serious weakness (either Wood or Jolly forward) for upwards of 90% of the game, that's simply not sustainable.
I do think Wood's gone backwards this year in his first ruck role and it's possible he won't be at the club next year, but even at his best he's just not capable of the forward/ruck role.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dont like Elliot and Sinclair both in the same side. Would rather Clarke as he gives us a run with option for somebody like a Jetta. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sinclair would be a better matchup for Jetta than Clarke, I reckon (though, Toovey will play on hm as he did last game).
Anyway, they won't be playing in the same team. One (probably Elliott) will be the sub.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Clifton Hill-Billy
Joined: 29 Sep 2011
Location: 3068----> 3076
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Anybody prefer Seedsman over Sinclair? I think Sinclair's shocking kicking for goal could be an absolute liability in a tight contest and I don't think he has troubled the scoreboard since he comes back from injury. Didn't Seedsman have a sort of decent game against Swans last time we played them? I recognise Seedsman hasn't played in the seniors in a while, but he at least can be damaging by foot.
_________________
"Hey Ma get off the dang roof!" |
|
|
|
|
Breadcrawl
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think the one change is a real positive.
Considering the job Sinkers did on Birchall, you would expect him to be required if we are worthy next week. Having two matches off prior to this is less than desirable so he probably needed to play this week.
Didak is guaranteed not to get injured this week because he won't be playing.
Elliott out and Dids in next week will be pretty damn close to our best possible 22 on the most important day. It'll be interesting to see who the sub is if that is the 22
_________________
they can smell what we're cookin' |
|
|
|
|
Fire Up 
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Location: in a house
|
| Post subject: | |
|
wood has flown up with the team. he is not even on the emg list (iirc).
i reckon sinclair will start off as sub and swap with elliott |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Clifton Hill-Billy wrote: | | Anybody prefer Seedsman over Sinclair? I think Sinclair's shocking kicking for goal could be an absolute liability in a tight contest and I don't think he has troubled the scoreboard since he comes back from injury. Didn't Seedsman have a sort of decent game against Swans last time we played them? I recognise Seedsman hasn't played in the seniors in a while, but he at least can be damaging by foot. |
Yep. Me. Well, I prefer Seedsman over Sinclair in the form he showed against the Hawks the other day, but a Sinclair in the form he had earlier in the year - that's a different story.
Well, maybe this is a good move. Sinclair can show his best form against the Swannies and then be selected again and given a chance to redeem himself against the Hawks, or not show his best form, in which case we will go with Elliott and Didak (1st choice) or (if need be) Elliott and Seedsman against Hawthorn.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
