The squads for Friday

[Otiman]

Missing (I'm a little rusty on some numbers)

4.
8. Max
9.
12. Riewoldt
13. Schneider
16. Raph
20. Armitage
24. Dempster
28.
29.
30. Howard
33. Gwilt
35.
36: Allen
39.
40.
41.
46.

[saintbrat]

oh #50's not playing
was hoping to see him


maybe the last challenge game-- or do we have to head to a Sandy practice match

no 4,9 or 35 players for 2009

[borderbarry]

McQualter Miles and Dawson the only rookies gettting a go for the second game in a row. None of them did enough against Brisbane to justify this selection. Give the other kids a go. And I am sick of seeing posters nominating Dawson as a Senior player. He has to have a huge improvement before he earns a senior post.

[Batnoe]

McQualter Miles and Dawson the only rookies gettting a go for the second game in a row. None of them did enough against Brisbane to justify this selection. Give the other kids a go. And I am sick of seeing posters nominating Dawson as a Senior player. He has to have a huge improvement before he earns a senior post.

MCQ no longer a rookie

do you mean Howard?

[borderbarry]

And why are'nt the boys we took in the draft (beside Heyne) getting a go? Our selectors are still frightened to do anything rash. Week as water.

[borderbarry]

Howard or McQualter, whichever. I want to see the boys who have never or rarely been blooded. There are enough of them. If the fans dont get to see the new players in the practise matches, when do they see them? Why play players who have been there for years and found wanting at this time of year?

[plugger66]

McQualter Miles and Dawson the only rookies gettting a go for the second game in a row. None of them did enough against Brisbane to justify this selection. Give the other kids a go. And I am sick of seeing posters nominating Dawson as a Senior player. He has to have a huge improvement before he earns a senior post.

Thanks for that lack of knowledge. mini is a senior player. dawson will probably be in the next 2 weeks.

[vacuous space]

Howard or McQualter, whichever. I want to see the boys who have never or rarely been blooded.

McQualter had equal most clearances in the Brisbane game in limited game time. He was right up there in contested possessions. He didn't have an ineffective disposal all night. There's no reason to drop a guy who played well just because Saintsational has arbitrarily decided he's not good enough. He's only 22.

There's a common theme with the rookies who have played. They're all at least 20 and should be pushing for elevation this year. The guys who haven't played are either injured or clearly not ready. Ross is clearly setting the team up to play round one. I don't know how anyone could object to that.

[borderbarry]

These are practise games remember. Are we now at thestage that we are not going to play anybody until they are 20? Tim Watson had nearly 100 games up by then.
I would like to see how Choo Choo goes in the seniors. He was more impressive in the intra-club match than Dawson and a lot of the others named to play. He kicked most of the white team score.
I have nothing against mini. It is the rejects from the other clubs that I am disappointed in.

[plugger66]

These are practise games remember. Are we now at thestage that we are not going to play anybody until they are 20? Tim Watson had nearly 100 games up by then.
I would like to see how Choo Choo goes in the seniors. He was more impressive in the intra-club match than Dawson and a lot of the others named to play. He kicked most of the white team score.
I have nothing against mini. It is the rejects from the other clubs that I am disappointed in.

So Choo Choo was more impressive than Dawson. Well unless he can play full back that means jack shite.

[MCG-Unit]

These are practise games remember. Are we now at thestage that we are not going to play anybody until they are 20.....

....I would like to see how Choo Choo goes in the seniors. He was more impressive in the intra-club match than Dawson and a lot of the others named to play......
I have nothing against mini. It is the rejects from the other clubs that I am disappointed in.

I knew that's where you were heading - for Tungatalum to get a game over senior listed player McQualter, or a KPP in Dawson
Maybe they can play him instead of Gardiner

What other 'rejects' are you disappointed in, Ray, Begley ??

[Saints94]

I like the squad........ bulldogs have all there good players

[Pwoit]

Missing (I'm a little rusty on some numbers)

4. Barry Breen left a while ago
8. Max
9. Val Perovic has lost his "woof" power
12. Riewoldt
13. Schneider
16. Raph
20. Armitage
24. Dempster
28. Cain Ackland Cant Jump
29. Burkie, Aussie, Thomo, Pecko just cant fit inothe one jumper these days
30. Howard
33. Gwilt
35. - Scratcher Neal is a sad loss i know
36: Allen
39. Billy Mildenhall was a great player
40. Glen Coglan smashed James Hird that day
41. Timmy Pekin what a legend
46. Andrew Jobling

[Batnoe]

These are practise games remember. Are we now at thestage that we are not going to play anybody until they are 20? Tim Watson had nearly 100 games up by then.
I would like to see how Choo Choo goes in the seniors. He was more impressive in the intra-club match than Dawson and a lot of the others named to play. He kicked most of the white team score.
I have nothing against mini. It is the rejects from the other clubs that I am disappointed in.

So Choo Choo was more impressive than Dawson. Well unless he can play full back that means jack shite.

hahah

like to see him play FP for a practice game and wonder up to the wing

[Quixote]

In this interview, dated the 23rd of Feb --

http://saints.com.au/fanzone/supporterg ... fault.aspx


Ross Lyon basically states his intended back six for 2009. The names are as follows, the positions are my guess work:


B: Baker Max Dawson
HB: Raph Maguire X Clarke

[borderbarry]

We will know more after tomorrows game. I expect that Geary, Dempster, Ray, Begley, and a few others will be in the mix too.

[vacuous space]

Are we now at thestage that we are not going to play anybody until they are 20?

Heyne and Steven are 18, McEvoy and Connors are 19, Armo and Geary are 20. They're all playing. Tim Watson may have played 100 games by the time he was 20, but Jobe Watson had played about 8. It's a different game today. It's very tough for a lightly built 18 year old, particularly one that didn't play a high level of junior footy.

And while we're comparing apples and oranges, I thought Simpkin and McGarry were much more impressive than Tungatalum at the intrasquad. For whatever reason, nobody seems to be upset that they're not playing.

[mad saint guy]

In this interview, dated the 23rd of Feb --

http://saints.com.au/fanzone/supporterg ... fault.aspx


Ross Lyon basically states his intended back six for 2009. The names are as follows, the positions are my guess work:


B: Baker Max Dawson
HB: Raph Maguire X Clarke

Going by that article it sounds like he's got a pretty clear view of the team this year.

Something like

B: Dawson, Hudghton, Baker
HB: R.Clarke, Maguire, X.Clarke
C: Gram, Hayes, S.Fisher
HF: Dal Santo, Riewoldt, Montagna
F: Gwilt, Koschitzke, Milne

Foll: King, Ball, Goddard
Int: Gilbert, Blake, Schneider , Ray

Backup: Jones, Gardiner, Eddy, McQualter, Begley, Armitage
Possibilities: Steven, Heyne, McEvoy, Lynch

A bit too much of that is relying on Max and Goose both staying fit and in form for my liking. I understand that he wants to get quality in the midfield, but with this attitude we're running a major risk of destroying our defence. Max, Chips, Gram, Raph and Blake worked very well as a permanent backline. Don't know about throwing in a few GOPs to take their place so we can increase midfield rotations. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we saw Max, Chips and Blake as the key backs again by round 5.

[Iceman234]

Have I missed something here?

Has Zac been elevated off the rookie list already due to an LTI?

[vacuous space]

I don't think we have to elevate him. From what I gather they have changed the rookie list rules (again). Clubs with vacant veteran list spots can nominate a rookie to play. They talked about it a bit during the Hawthorn-Melbourne match. They have to be nominated before the season starts and you'd think that Dawson would have the edge for that spot. The only other contender would have to be Miles, and with our plethora of small-to-medium defenders, I can't see him getting the nom.

[sunsaint]

In this interview, dated the 23rd of Feb --

http://saints.com.au/fanzone/supporterg ... fault.aspx


Ross Lyon basically states his intended back six for 2009. The names are as follows, the positions are my guess work:


B: Baker Max Dawson
HB: Raph Maguire X Clarke

if that list is the prefered backline, this implies SFisher and Goddard move forward, why did we get Begley and Ray?

[Iceman234]

Thanks vs.

I had missed that change.

[mad saint guy]

I don't think we have to elevate him. From what I gather they have changed the rookie list rules (again). Clubs with vacant veteran list spots can nominate a rookie to play.

Pretty sure clubs just get a chance to elevate a rookie mid-year, regardless of injuries. But we've got Allen and Dempster both out anywyay.

[St Fidelius]

I don't think we have to elevate him. From what I gather they have changed the rookie list rules (again). Clubs with vacant veteran list spots can nominate a rookie to play.

Pretty sure clubs just get a chance to elevate a rookie mid-year, regardless of injuries. But we've got Allen and Dempster both out anywyay.

Zac Dawson is almost a dead cert to be elevated IMO, I have not seen too much of him, but if is able to fill a role down back and free up someone else like Gram to play up the ground I feel that if there is a spot or two he will be elevated.

On a side note, Dawson would be a handy pickup in the Super Coach or Dream Team sides, he is bottom dollar, and he should get a few games. Whether he scores much is another story.

[vacuous space]

Pretty sure clubs just get a chance to elevate a rookie mid-year, regardless of injuries.

It's hard to find the rules on these things, but here's an article that would suggest what I'm at least partially correct:

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/newsa ... fault.aspx

The Hawks decided to retain [Stokes] on the rookie list but with no veterans on the list, he is free to play at AFL level as a nominated rookie.

From what they were saying on the game commentary during the Hawks-Demons game, Stokes is guaranteed one of two spots. Garry Moss is in the running to get the other. That would lead me to believe you get one nomination for every vetrans spot not used, which would give us one. That would mean we could play Dawson from R1 without elevating him or adding anyone to the LTI list.

And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, try and find something to contradict what I'm saying rather than just telling me I'm wrong. Just because you haven't heard of the rule doesn't mean it isn't there.