First Final 25

[older saint]

As it will be Sunday a squad of 25, the final 22 obviously decided also by the opposition.

B: Baker, Hudghton , Dawson
HB: Gilbert, Fisher, R Clarke
C: Montgnana, Hayes, Gram
HF: Jones, Roo, Ray
F: Milne, Kosi, Schnieder
Foll: Gardiner, Dal Santo, Goddard
Int from: Blake, King, McQualter, Gwilt, Geary,Ball, Armitage,

Locks on bench King, McQualter Blake
Depending on opponents - Gwilt (exploit size down back Bulldogs, stop zoning off collingwood, Geelong) Geary (require speed ala Bulldogs), Ball (Require hardness - Geel, Coll wet weather)

[bergholt]

any injuries?

[BonoRocks]

As it will be Sunday a squad of 25, the final 22 obviously decided also by the opposition.

B: Baker, Hudghton , Dawson
HB: Gilbert, Fisher, R Clarke
C: Montgnana, Hayes, Gram
HF: Jones, Roo, Ray
F: Milne, Kosi, Schnieder
Foll: Gardiner, Dal Santo, Goddard
Int from: Blake, King, McQualter, Gwilt, Geary,Ball, Armitage,

Locks on bench King, McQualter Blake
Depending on opponents - Gwilt (exploit size down back Bulldogs, stop zoning off collingwood, Geelong) Geary (require speed ala Bulldogs), Ball (Require hardness - Geel, Coll wet weather)

You add guilt and you have one midflielder on the bench, would seriously get found out with rotations and got help us if any midflielders go down during the game.

[matrix]

gram
midfield option
bj
midfield option
mini
midfield option

[plugger66]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

[35...LEGEND]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

+1.....think Zac (been good though) will make way during Finals action to give a more mobile backline...IMO.

While Max has not been great, I'd say experience will get the nod over youthful enthusiasm come Final's time......again just my opinion.

Blake has a few strings to the bow,which should see him get the nod also.

Add in.... Baker,Fisher,Gilbert,Raph,B.J,Ray Ray and Dempster,I think we have enough options without Zac......IMO.


P.S. does anyone else think Zac's game has been affected by the rubbish suspension(good hit i thought) a few week's back.
Just not the same player imo......was loving him dishing out some heavy bump's and shepherd's ,but it seem's to have dissappeared since that incident along with Zac's form.

[meher baba]

For mine the lineup would be

B: Baker, Hudghton Gilbert
HB: Fisher, Blake, R Clarke
C: Montagna, Dal Santo, Gram
HF: Goddard, Roo, McQualter
F: Milne, Kosi, Schneider
Foll: Gardiner, Hayes, Jones,

Interchange: King, Ray and two out of Gwilt, Geary, Ball and Dempster.

Emergencies: McEvoy and the two who miss out above

I reckon that Dempster will be selected on the basis of his vast finals experience. That will mean that they have to go with a high possession midfielder for the last interchange spot, so Gwilt will miss (a pity IMO: with Dempster we know what we will get, whereas Gwilt is a potentially high impact player who could make a cruical difference). In that case, I would go for Ball, but it might end up being Geary who gets the nod.

McEvoy is undoubtedly behind Gardi and King and won't be considered unless there is a significant form or injury issue.

As for the other contenders

Eddy: I think Lyon would really quite like to play him, but I suspect that the collective wisdom at the club will leave him out. I can't really see how he is a credible finals player ahead of the likes of Ball, Geary, Gwilt or Dempster.

Armo: I think that Sunday evening was his big opportunity. He didn't grasp it and I think that has put him behind Ball and Geary in the pecking order.

Dawson: I think I've said enough of my views. He's unlucky to be an excellent, but less experienced KPP in an area in which we have a surplus of excellent, highly experienced KPPs. But, if either Max or Blake have an out and out shocker in any of the next few games, he will come back into consideration.

Steven: If you reckon he is even being considered at this stage, dream on. The club isn't going to take any major risks at this stage of proceedings.

Goose: He undoubtedly would have gotten a game in the last two weeks if he had been fit to play. His injury came at the worst possible time. Our players would need to start dropping like flies for Goose to come into contention.

Begley: See Steven

[plugger66]

Like the side but i would see Ball as a definite and they will probably go with dempster. My difference to your side would be very controversial as I would probably have Zac ahead of Max due to Zac's better disposal but i think the club will go with Max and Zac.

[older saint]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

[hAyES]

I like the look of meher baba's team, with Ball and Dempster taking the last two bench spots. Can't wait for finals.

[PJ]

Yes, like your team MB but I think we need to see the next 2 weeks pan out before the final lock is in.

I think Bally's got some work ahead of him to secure a spot (Armo ahead of geary for mine as an alternative) and Zac is still around the mark and it's not out of the question that the coaching panel will go with the famous 3 everyone is bemoaning (Zac, Max & Joe Blake).

[Con Gorozidis]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

yeah i agree 100% with the OP's 25. But i reckon blake or max are competing for one spot in the 22.....

[plugger66]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

[older saint]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

[plugger66]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

This crew as you call it are Zac, max and Blake and apart from the Hawks game we have struggled to be at our best when all 3 play together. As for Fisher being freed up that hasnt happened for at least 6 weeks as the opposition put a tagger on him. Maybe it is about time he played on someone so he can get back to his best.

[nathan000]

I got a hunch Kosi will be rested. Gwilt will be brought in for him. And Ball and Armo out for Jones and McQualter.

[35...LEGEND]

I got a hunch Kosi will be rested. Gwilt will be brought in for him. And Ball and Armo out for Jones and McQualter.

Thought Kosi played his best game for a few weeks on the weekend....

Don't reckon i'd be resting him after finding a bit of form....need him hitting his peak in a couple of weeks.....imo......resting him might set him back again a tad...

[older saint]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

This crew as you call it are Zac, max and Blake and apart from the Hawks game we have struggled to be at our best when all 3 play together. As for Fisher being freed up that hasnt happened for at least 6 weeks as the opposition put a tagger on him. Maybe it is about time he played on someone so he can get back to his best.

AGree to disagree i think, Defensive performance is based on pressure from Forwards and Mids up the ground which has dropped off, except for the Hawthorn game. Realistically cannot think of too many one on one matchups where guys continually beaten and the fact no individual has kicked a bag against us back this.

[plugger66]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

This crew as you call it are Zac, max and Blake and apart from the Hawks game we have struggled to be at our best when all 3 play together. As for Fisher being freed up that hasnt happened for at least 6 weeks as the opposition put a tagger on him. Maybe it is about time he played on someone so he can get back to his best.

AGree to disagree i think, Defensive performance is based on pressure from Forwards and Mids up the ground which has dropped off, except for the Hawthorn game. Realistically cannot think of too many one on one matchups where guys continually beaten and the fact no individual has kicked a bag against us back this.

Have you also thought we get less run out of the backline when all 3 play or is it a coincidence the midfield play badly when all 3 have been in. I have no doubt we started Fisher forward last week because we were to tall down back. I dont understand mucking around with the structure just to fit 3 talls in the backline together.

[older saint]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

This crew as you call it are Zac, max and Blake and apart from the Hawks game we have struggled to be at our best when all 3 play together. As for Fisher being freed up that hasnt happened for at least 6 weeks as the opposition put a tagger on him. Maybe it is about time he played on someone so he can get back to his best.

AGree to disagree i think, Defensive performance is based on pressure from Forwards and Mids up the ground which has dropped off, except for the Hawthorn game. Realistically cannot think of too many one on one matchups where guys continually beaten and the fact no individual has kicked a bag against us back this.

Have you also thought we get less run out of the backline when all 3 play or is it a coincidence the midfield play badly when all 3 have been in. I have no doubt we started Fisher forward last week because we were to tall down back. I dont understand mucking around with the structure just to fit 3 talls in the backline together.

If you do not want to muck around with the structure then it kills your own argument as this has been the structure for many many games.
Whether it is STkilda or any team, if there is no forward pressure and lose in the midfield pressure the backline is in trouble whether you have 1 or 5 talls.
Run form the backline was slowed last week due to how the ball was received in and also Essendon's pace through the middle of the ground to set their zone.
I think Fisher started forwrad to try something different and with Gwilt out there was no 3rd marking forward in the same way Goddard started forward against WC. RL sees opportunities for mismatches in attack and expliots them whichis fantastic as it give us unpredictability.

[plugger66]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

This crew as you call it are Zac, max and Blake and apart from the Hawks game we have struggled to be at our best when all 3 play together. As for Fisher being freed up that hasnt happened for at least 6 weeks as the opposition put a tagger on him. Maybe it is about time he played on someone so he can get back to his best.

AGree to disagree i think, Defensive performance is based on pressure from Forwards and Mids up the ground which has dropped off, except for the Hawthorn game. Realistically cannot think of too many one on one matchups where guys continually beaten and the fact no individual has kicked a bag against us back this.

Have you also thought we get less run out of the backline when all 3 play or is it a coincidence the midfield play badly when all 3 have been in. I have no doubt we started Fisher forward last week because we were to tall down back. I dont understand mucking around with the structure just to fit 3 talls in the backline together.

If you do not want to muck around with the structure then it kills your own argument as this has been the structure for many many games.
Whether it is STkilda or any team, if there is no forward pressure and lose in the midfield pressure the backline is in trouble whether you have 1 or 5 talls.
Run form the backline was slowed last week due to how the ball was received in and also Essendon's pace through the middle of the ground to set their zone.
I think Fisher started forwrad to try something different and with Gwilt out there was no 3rd marking forward in the same way Goddard started forward against WC. RL sees opportunities for mismatches in attack and expliots them whichis fantastic as it give us unpredictability.

I wouldnt say 5 games out of 20 is many many games, matter of fact it is 25% so I am pretty sure it backs up my point.

[Ghost Like]

I got a hunch Kosi will be rested. Gwilt will be brought in for him. And Ball and Armo out for Jones and McQualter.

Thought Kosi played his best game for a few weeks on the weekend....

Don't reckon i'd be resting him after finding a bit of form....need him hitting his peak in a couple of weeks.....imo......resting him might set him back again a tad...

Agree, Kosi's a bit like my lawn mower, takes a while to get started when not used for a while but when going, gets the job done.

Kosi needs a string of games before hitting his best...no rest for Kosi!

[older saint]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

This crew as you call it are Zac, max and Blake and apart from the Hawks game we have struggled to be at our best when all 3 play together. As for Fisher being freed up that hasnt happened for at least 6 weeks as the opposition put a tagger on him. Maybe it is about time he played on someone so he can get back to his best.

AGree to disagree i think, Defensive performance is based on pressure from Forwards and Mids up the ground which has dropped off, except for the Hawthorn game. Realistically cannot think of too many one on one matchups where guys continually beaten and the fact no individual has kicked a bag against us back this.

Have you also thought we get less run out of the backline when all 3 play or is it a coincidence the midfield play badly when all 3 have been in. I have no doubt we started Fisher forward last week because we were to tall down back. I dont understand mucking around with the structure just to fit 3 talls in the backline together.

If you do not want to muck around with the structure then it kills your own argument as this has been the structure for many many games.
Whether it is STkilda or any team, if there is no forward pressure and lose in the midfield pressure the backline is in trouble whether you have 1 or 5 talls.
Run form the backline was slowed last week due to how the ball was received in and also Essendon's pace through the middle of the ground to set their zone.
I think Fisher started forwrad to try something different and with Gwilt out there was no 3rd marking forward in the same way Goddard started forward against WC. RL sees opportunities for mismatches in attack and expliots them whichis fantastic as it give us unpredictability.

I wouldnt say 5 games out of 20 is many many games, matter of fact it is 25% so I am pretty sure it backs up my point.

If 14-0 as opposed to 4-1 supports your argument then fine. Probably find we lost the contested ball also in the games when all 4 played. As i said before agree to disagree.

[plugger66]

Still dont like our backline with Blake, Max and Zac in it together. Cannot see any side they match up with.

Blake can play as a utility, across the wing, half forward making a Maxwell or a Harley accountable, or even tag a Brennan type - larger mid fielder.

Car - Fevola, OHalphin, Cloke
Collingwood - Cloke, Fraser and Anthony
Dogs - Minson , Welsh, Hahn at a stretch,
Geel - Hawkins, Mooney and perhaps Ottens

I see your point but others also need to worry about us.

We havent played Blake as a utility all year so we wouldnt start now. We either go with the 3 of them back or drop one. One of the talls you mention at the other clubs are ruckmen so they will never play permanently forward. Even if we had much ups for them the problem is the skill and pace those 3 do not provide.

Minson and Fraser both ruckmen who play forward with Hudson and Woods. Ottens will not play in the ruck only forward, if at all.

True Blake hasn't played that role as yet. seeing they have played most of the year Max Dawson and Blake and have a 19-1 record I cannot see much changing. for all the perceived match up problems with tis crew we have done fairly well I would say. It also allows Fisher to free up not having to play on CHF

This crew as you call it are Zac, max and Blake and apart from the Hawks game we have struggled to be at our best when all 3 play together. As for Fisher being freed up that hasnt happened for at least 6 weeks as the opposition put a tagger on him. Maybe it is about time he played on someone so he can get back to his best.

AGree to disagree i think, Defensive performance is based on pressure from Forwards and Mids up the ground which has dropped off, except for the Hawthorn game. Realistically cannot think of too many one on one matchups where guys continually beaten and the fact no individual has kicked a bag against us back this.

Have you also thought we get less run out of the backline when all 3 play or is it a coincidence the midfield play badly when all 3 have been in. I have no doubt we started Fisher forward last week because we were to tall down back. I dont understand mucking around with the structure just to fit 3 talls in the backline together.

If you do not want to muck around with the structure then it kills your own argument as this has been the structure for many many games.
Whether it is STkilda or any team, if there is no forward pressure and lose in the midfield pressure the backline is in trouble whether you have 1 or 5 talls.
Run form the backline was slowed last week due to how the ball was received in and also Essendon's pace through the middle of the ground to set their zone.
I think Fisher started forwrad to try something different and with Gwilt out there was no 3rd marking forward in the same way Goddard started forward against WC. RL sees opportunities for mismatches in attack and expliots them whichis fantastic as it give us unpredictability.

I wouldnt say 5 games out of 20 is many many games, matter of fact it is 25% so I am pretty sure it backs up my point.

If 14-0 as opposed to 4-1 supports your argument then fine. Probably find we lost the contested ball also in the games when all 4 played. As i said before agree to disagree.

Doesnt matter whether we agree but RL seems to see a problem.

[older saint]

For this week that would appear so although Max could be "resting".
Obviously RL is the only thoguht that mattered, however this would be a very boring place if no on eoffered opinions because at the end of the day they meant nothing!
Feel free to have the last word as it appears important to you!