Max must go...

[plugger66]

for me, max has to come back in and i'm hoping this is just resting him whilst we can't lose top spot.

He'd be playing down at Sandy wouldnt he...??..

is he playing for sandy this weekend? i haven't seen their ins & outs?

He certainly is at the moment.

[SaintHomer]

yeah, its an interesting one. i don't think his year has been as bad as some make out. stats for a fullback can be irrelevant to some extent. for example the amount of ball entering the back 50 this has been reduced significantly on any of previous years i would imagine. we are still only averaging about 64 points scored against which is phenomenal.

i really think we need maxy up and going. he has fev's number and i am a little concerned that zac is basically untried in a losing saints side. he has played well this year, i'll give him that, but i'm not sure we've seen him truly tested.

anyway, happy to put my faith in ross, he's got the score on the board so far as coach for the saints.

like everyone, i just want that damn elusive flag. then all this will be irrelevant.

[meher baba]

I won't be gutted if we win the GF without Max.

However, I will be gutted if we lose a PF or GF without him in the side when he was fit to play and if an opposing key forward has a big day out(and that would include Stevie J IMO, who Max would handle well).

Max has always been a great player in finals: I can't recall him putting in a poor performance. Indeed, there are some who think that - if Alves had taken Shanahan off Jarman in the final quarter and replaced him with Max - we might have come away with a flag (personally I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but I reckon most coaches would have tried it and I've never been quite sure why Alves didn't: but this is probably ancient history for many of the "Max must go" types on here).

Hence we have a bit of a dilemma: and one which I'm sure that Ross and SoS are thinking long and hard about. That is, if we can only have one of Max and Zac playing on GF day, how can you leave out an accomplished and vastly experienced player like Max in favour of an elevated rookie? What if Zac turns out to be the Jamie Shanahan of the 2009 GF??

And I still think the answer - assuming that Max is 100% fit - is that you can't leave him out.

So I don't read as much into the dropping of Max for the totally meaningless game against the Roos as others have done.

Of course, it might mean that they have decided to give up on Max and go with Zac: but, if that were the case, I would think that they would have given Max the opportunity to retire with dignity.

So I reckon they might be doing what I would do: try one week with just Zac and one week with just Max in the interests of getting some further information (and also allowing them to try out Geary in the midfield, or give Gwilt another go up forward, or Armo one more time, or whatever).

[plugger66]

I won't be gutted if we win the GF without Max.

However, I will be gutted if we lose a PF or GF without him in the side when he was fit to play and if an opposing key forward has a big day out(and that would include Stevie J IMO, who Max would handle well).

Max has always been a great player in finals: I can't recall him putting in a poor performance. Indeed, there are some who think that - if Alves had taken Shanahan off Jarman in the final quarter and replaced him with Max - we might have come away with a flag (personally I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but I reckon most coaches would have tried it and I've never been quite sure why Alves didn't: but this is probably ancient history for many of the "Max must go" types on here).

Hence we have a bit of a dilemma: and one which I'm sure that Ross and SoS are thinking long and hard about. That is, if we can only have one of Max and Zac playing on GF day, how can you leave out an accomplished and vastly experienced player like Max in favour of an elevated rookie? What if Zac turns out to be the Jamie Shanahan of the 2009 GF??

And I still think the answer - assuming that Max is 100% fit - is that you can't leave him out.

So I don't read as much into the dropping of Max for the totally meaningless game against the Roos as others have done.

Of course, it might mean that they have decided to give up on Max and go with Zac: but, if that were the case, I would think that they would have given Max the opportunity to retire with dignity.

So I reckon they might be doing what I would do: try one week with just Zac and one week with just Max in the interests of getting some further information (and also allowing them to try out Geary in the midfield, or give Gwilt another go up forward, or Armo one more time, or whatever).

The problem with that theory is that they have given Zac first go at it and if say he was BOG this week they arent going to drop him one game before the finals. If Zac goes just OK this week Max is a chance to get back in but I think we have seen how RL feels about playing both Zac and max. It looks like it may not happen. I really dont care who plays out of either of them as long as only one play in the finals.

[asiu]

So I don't read as much into the dropping of Max for the totally meaningless game against the Roos as others have done.

agreed ....it'll certainly focus his attention but ....

Of course, it might mean that they have decided to give up on Max and go with Zac: but, if that were the case, I would think that they would have given Max the opportunity to retire with dignity.

thats the second time i've read this sentiment .....as if you would .......me no understandy

anything could (touching wood) .... from leftfield come , why would we do anything except secure and enhance our options .....

[meher baba]

The problem with that theory is that they have given Zac first go at it and if say he was BOG this week they arent going to drop him one game before the finals. If Zac goes just OK this week Max is a chance to get back in but I think we have seen how RL feels about playing both Zac and max. It looks like it may not happen. I really dont care who plays out of either of them as long as only one play in the finals.

I feel like you do that we can only have one of Zac or Max in the finals.

I feel that the percentage call is always going to be Max. But I don't think that going with Zac instead would be a bad choice: just a less good one.

While I would be very sorry for Max if he does miss, I don't really think sentiment can enter into it and, if I were RL, I wouldn't have any trouble going with Zac over Max if I thought that was the better option.

However, if Zac is BOG on Saturday, then something will have gone seriously wrong further up the ground!!

[meher baba]

So I don't read as much into the dropping of Max for the totally meaningless game against the Roos as others have done.

agreed ....it'll certainly focus his attention but ....

Of course, it might mean that they have decided to give up on Max and go with Zac: but, if that were the case, I would think that they would have given Max the opportunity to retire with dignity.

thats the second time i've read this sentiment .....as if you would .......me no understandy

anything could (touching wood) .... from leftfield come , why would we do anything except secure and enhance our options .....

I don't disagree with you, because I don't think they have given up on Max yet. But some on here are claiming that they have.................

[bob__71]

I won't be gutted if we win the GF without Max.

However, I will be gutted if we lose a PF or GF without him in the side when he was fit to play and if an opposing key forward has a big day out(and that would include Stevie J IMO, who Max would handle well).

Will you be gutted if we play Max and drop Zac, and a big forward has a day out on Max when Zac was 100% fit?