IN Jones, McQualter

JT · Post: # 798127Post JT » Mon 17 Aug 2009 6:04pm

Out ? ?

2 of
Armitage (was effective up forward)
Dempster (Ross fav)
Clarke (not our worst)
Baker (would be shattered for him)
Ball (would be shattered for him)
Max (team balance)
Dawson (team balance)
Blake (surely not)

EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO BE SAFE

saint patrick · Mon 17 Aug 2009 6:23pm

A tough decision for sure but as much as I hate to say it Ball and Bakes would be the most concerned.

CJ and mini are auto ins if fit...reckon Jack Steven will be mentioned in despatches as well...his pace could be a wildcard in september...means dropping someone else which will be difficult.

Spots in our final 22 will be decided pretty much in the next 2 practice games[not being disrespectful but pretty much what they represent].

Lyon will have 18 of 22 locked in...4 players are playing for their lives and possible immortality

Thinline · Post: # 798147Post **Thinline** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 6:36pm

saint patrick wrote:
CJ and mini are auto ins if fit...reckon Jack Steven will be mentioned in despatches as well...his pace could be a wildcard in september...means dropping someone else which will be difficult.

Where is despatches? Why are they so big on young Jack there?

saint patrick · Mon 17 Aug 2009 6:47pm

Thinline wrote:
saint patrick wrote:
CJ and mini are auto ins if fit...reckon Jack Steven will be mentioned in despatches as well...his pace could be a wildcard in september...means dropping someone else which will be difficult.

Where is despatches? Why are they so big on young Jack there?

LoL

..think that should have been dispatches

Jack Steven has certainly got something about him...will be a very good player longterm if not very late in 09

St DAC · Post: # 798214Post **St DAC** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 7:55pm

On form, assuming CJ and McQ are automatic selections (and who'd have thought that 12 months ago?) then Armo and Ball would be a bit worried. Neither had great games last night. Yes, Armo kicked 2 goals, but didn't do much else as a midfielder. And Bally was quiet IMO.

Mr Magic · Post: # 798226Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 8:04pm

St DAC wrote:On form, assuming CJ and McQ are automatic selections (and who'd have thought that 12 months ago?) then Armo and Ball would be a bit worried. Neither had great games last night. Yes, Armo kicked 2 goals, but didn't do much else as a midfielder. And Bally was quiet IMO.

Only watching it on tv, so didn't see what was going on more than 30m from the play, but Armo didn't seem to be doing much. He was 'johnny on the spot' a couple of times which resulted in a some well needed goals, but was he playing as a small forward or a midfielder?

If he was playing as a small forward then Mini gives us much, much more in terms of forward defensive pressure that has been a hallmark of our 19-0 season.

If he was playing as a midfielfer then it would come down to a choice between CJ (an automatic in IMO), another mid or Armo.

Ball is an 'inside mid' (like Lenny and Armo to a lesser extent).
Armo isn't as good as Ball as an 'inside mid' nor is he as good as Mini as a 'defensive forward'.

xander · Post: # 798227Post **xander** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 8:05pm

saint patrick wrote:A tough decision for sure but as much as I hate to say it Ball and Bakes would be the most concerned.

CJ and mini are auto ins if fit...reckon Jack Steven will be mentioned in despatches as well...his pace could be a wildcard in september...means dropping someone else which will be difficult.

Spots in our final 22 will be decided pretty much in the next 2 practice games[not being disrespectful but pretty much what they represent].

Lyon will have 18 of 22 locked in...4 players are playing for their lives and possible immortality

Why baker? we cant have our entire backline filled with 190cm+ players otherwise smaller forwards like monfries or williams from the hawks will tear us up.

Young Georgie · Mon 17 Aug 2009 8:10pm

xander wrote:
saint patrick wrote:A tough decision for sure but as much as I hate to say it Ball and Bakes would be the most concerned.

CJ and mini are auto ins if fit...reckon Jack Steven will be mentioned in despatches as well...his pace could be a wildcard in september...means dropping someone else which will be difficult.

Spots in our final 22 will be decided pretty much in the next 2 practice games[not being disrespectful but pretty much what they represent].

Lyon will have 18 of 22 locked in...4 players are playing for their lives and possible immortality
Why baker? we cant have our entire backline filled with 190cm+ players otherwise smaller forwards like monfries or williams from the hawks will tear us up.

Forget Williams; think Davis, Didak, Medhurst, Akermanis, Johnson. That tall defence is a bit of a concern against the mid/small forwards as patently demonstrated yesterday if our midfield is not on song. Baker stays!

xander · Post: # 798238Post **xander** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 8:14pm

Young Georgie wrote:
xander wrote:
saint patrick wrote:A tough decision for sure but as much as I hate to say it Ball and Bakes would be the most concerned.

CJ and mini are auto ins if fit...reckon Jack Steven will be mentioned in despatches as well...his pace could be a wildcard in september...means dropping someone else which will be difficult.

Spots in our final 22 will be decided pretty much in the next 2 practice games[not being disrespectful but pretty much what they represent].

Lyon will have 18 of 22 locked in...4 players are playing for their lives and possible immortality
Why baker? we cant have our entire backline filled with 190cm+ players otherwise smaller forwards like monfries or williams from the hawks will tear us up.
Forget Williams; think Davis, Didak, Medhurst, Akermanis, Johnson. That tall defence is a bit of a concern against the mid/small forwards as patently demonstrated yesterday if our midfield is not on song. Baker stays!

well i dont think the hawks and williams will trouble us but i remember him carving us up in the final last year and we didnt have dempster or baker so gilbert played on him and was beaten badly.

redwhite&blackblood · Mon 17 Aug 2009 8:29pm

For mine it has to be Ball and Armitage to be left out.

SaintWodonga · Mon 17 Aug 2009 8:32pm

out Dempster & Ball (can't believe I would play both those guys in front of Ball!).

Winmarvellous · Mon 17 Aug 2009 8:37pm

Ball and Dempster for mine, but will probably be Ball and Armo. I think Ball may have to deal with the fact he has become nothing more than a GOP for WHATEVER reason that is. Every once in a while he may tease us with glimpses of what could've been, but I think his best days are well behind him unfortunately.

skeptic · Post: # 798268Post **skeptic** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 9:13pm

Dempster simply isn't effective atm

I'd get rid of him and one of the backmen... pbly zac

saintsRrising · Mon 17 Aug 2009 9:42pm

Baker is a lock at present.

Has been in good form.

borderbarry · Mon 17 Aug 2009 9:49pm

Must agree on Dempster. Very poor yesterday. Getting pinged for running too far on probablu the only occasion hd ran with the ball. On several occasions (does this every week) on marking, stands there and looks around until all bases covered, then kicks backward to a contest, on one occasion nearly to their goal square resulting in an easy goal to them. Very poor match, our worst player yesterday, but I doubt if Ross will drop one of his ex Sydney boys.

Thinline · Post: # 798293Post **Thinline** » Mon 17 Aug 2009 9:51pm

Maybe they'll do a 'fullback off'. Max gets North, Zac gets D's?

As much as I admire both, I just can't see room for two gangly spoilers.

Max is probably the more conservative selection. But is that how you win games?

Zac's probably a bit looser. Is that a risk worth taking?

Wasn't it easier when one was injured/suspended...

I lean towards Max I think, with Dempster to take Zac's spot and Goddard and Fisher and to lesser degree Raph sharing the quarterback/run out duties.

Baker, Gilbert and Blake are locks.

groupie1 · Post: # 798495Post **groupie1** » Tue 18 Aug 2009 6:39am

Dempster out as unnecessary this year with Baker's return and Gilbert's rise.

Armitage out as not as good as Ball as playing the only role he can - plodding midfielder.

CJ and Mini in.

Keeping a big backline in Blake, Gilbert, Max, Zac, Fisher, Raph (plus Baker). If we come up against Colingwood is when we need to rejig the backline. As they have 3 small forwards, and we'd need to bring Geary in for, my pick would be Zac Dawson.

DWOODROW · Post: # 798609Post **DWOODROW** » Tue 18 Aug 2009 2:15pm

[quote="groupie1"]Dempster out as unnecessary this year with Baker's return and Gilbert's rise.

Armitage out as not as good as Ball as playing the only role he can - plodding midfielder.

CJ and Mini in.

Keeping a big backline in Blake, Gilbert, Max, Zac, Fisher, Raph (plus Baker). If we come up against Colingwood is when we need to rejig the backline. As they have 3 small forwards, and we'd need to bring Geary in for, my pick would be Zac Dawson.[/quote]

Plodding midfielder. Good one d**khead. Didn't hear anyone calling him a plodding midfielder against the Hawks.

JT · Post: # 799674Post JT » Thu 20 Aug 2009 6:17pm

Whats does everyone think?

Will Ball keep his spot?

Batnoe · Post: # 799692Post **Batnoe** » Thu 20 Aug 2009 6:53pm

How quickly do people forget...

Ball is super important to our team and finals, play him so he can get some confidence, he had 25 touches and 10 tackles against Hawthorn and then he has 10 touches and 3 tackles. If you drop him, what does it prove?

Give him 80 percent time in the middle. Not 50% and then on the bench.

A few others were also down last week... Ball must be kept

plugger66 · Post: # 799693Post **plugger66** » Thu 20 Aug 2009 6:56pm

Batnoe wrote:How quickly do people forget...

Ball is super important to our team and finals, play him so he can get some confidence, he had 25 touches and 10 tackles against Hawthorn and then he has 10 touches and 3 tackles. If you drop him, what does it prove?

Give him 80 percent time in the middle. Not 50% and then on the bench.

A few others were also down last week... Ball must be kept

I think the point is he cannot play 80% in the middle as he just isnt fit enough to do it. having said that I still think he will play in the finals as he can at least get the ball just not sure he can get rid of it properly.

Batnoe · Post: # 799696Post **Batnoe** » Thu 20 Aug 2009 7:04pm

plugger66 wrote:
Batnoe wrote:How quickly do people forget...

Ball is super important to our team and finals, play him so he can get some confidence, he had 25 touches and 10 tackles against Hawthorn and then he has 10 touches and 3 tackles. If you drop him, what does it prove?

Give him 80 percent time in the middle. Not 50% and then on the bench.

A few others were also down last week... Ball must be kept
I think the point is he cannot play 80% in the middle as he just isnt fit enough to do it. having said that I still think he will play in the finals as he can at least get the ball just not sure he can get rid of it properly.

Is it because he isnt fit enough because of groin or his areobic capacity?

Would not running him hard in the middle not pick his fitness up?

If it is his groin, i wouldnt even play him in the middle but that defensive forward that MCQ has been playing and play MCQ into the middle

plugger66 · Post: # 799699Post **plugger66** » Thu 20 Aug 2009 7:09pm

Batnoe wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Batnoe wrote:How quickly do people forget...

Ball is super important to our team and finals, play him so he can get some confidence, he had 25 touches and 10 tackles against Hawthorn and then he has 10 touches and 3 tackles. If you drop him, what does it prove?

Give him 80 percent time in the middle. Not 50% and then on the bench.

A few others were also down last week... Ball must be kept
I think the point is he cannot play 80% in the middle as he just isnt fit enough to do it. having said that I still think he will play in the finals as he can at least get the ball just not sure he can get rid of it properly.
Is it because he isnt fit enough because of groin or his areobic capacity?

Would not running him hard in the middle not pick his fitness up?

If it is his groin, i wouldnt even play him in the middle but that defensive forward that MCQ has been playing and play MCQ into the middle

Its a catch 22. When he plays in the middle I think he is sore and cannot train properly during the week so he loses fitness. The game isnt enough to keep their fitness up. That is why he had a week off to train properly.

widereceiver · Thu 20 Aug 2009 7:34pm

saint patrick wrote:
Thinline wrote:
saint patrick wrote:
CJ and mini are auto ins if fit...reckon Jack Steven will be mentioned in despatches as well...his pace could be a wildcard in september...means dropping someone else which will be difficult.

Where is despatches? Why are they so big on young Jack there?
LoL ..think that should have been dispatches

Jack Steven has certainly got something about him...will be a very good player longterm if not very late in 09

As a matter of fact, despatches is correct too. You could be more pedantic about other grammar and spelling.

That is my definate opinion, fer Chrissakes.

asiu · Post: # 799754Post **asiu** » Thu 20 Aug 2009 7:53pm

Jack Steven has certainly got something about him...will be a very good player longterm

i'm into that action

bally and max....who would have thought it ....its gunna be a brilliant and absorbing ride through september ....go sainters