Game Day Round 4: Sydney v North Melbourne

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/16931/Default.aspx#fixtureid=7694&tab=Preview

Please win because it's going to be a long day if don't.

No changes for both teams. Armstrong sub for us.

The first thing I look at when comparing teams is the difference between them in terms of AFL experience. Although the Swans average about 10 games extra per player this match, the teams are very evenly matched outside of a few veterans who inflate the average numbers. Where there is a discernible difference is in the 30-70 games played bracket where Sydney have many more towards the higher end and north more towards the lower. It is about an extra season's worth of experience and this could prove crucial, especially given that North can still disappear during games and Sydney are one of the most disciplined teams in the competition.

No Mumford and no Goodes is obviously a blow for Sydney but I wonder whether it will be as great a factor as some seem to believe. My understanding is that Mumford has been underwhelming this season and Thompson did a job on Goodes last season. Can our ruckmen/man take advatage of the outs? The two-ruck strategy employed by Scott will be thoroughly tested today on a tiny SCG with only Seaby to compete. If the two rucks can't impose themselves on the match - be it at kickouts (long a weakness in the North game), across the ground, or as the man behind play - then more questions will be rightly asked about whether this can work 'going forward'.

North's handball-happy gamestyle will be a major decider in the winner of this match. I have only seen Sydney once this year (vs GWS) and their inability to stop the Giants' run from defence gives me hope that North might be able to pull it off against Longmire's men. If it comes unstuck, however, the consequences will be swift and brutal, especially if the boys attempt to run through a congested corridor.

The funny games re final teams will be interesting. With Delaney and HMac both listed on the bench, one wonders whether Scott is up to something.

Could see this going either way. North play as they have for most of the past two weeks and it would be a mighty effort for Sydney to get up. Somehow, though, I don't think Sydney will allow us to play the way we want and if we break down like we did against Essendon, Sydney could stroll away with it.

Tip: Sydney by two goals on their home deck. If it were Etihad I'd back us by five goals.

Fuuuuu why close the other thread while I'm replying. I lost it.

Anyways my point was Armstrong has never played a game with the senior group at any stage, no practice games, no nab cup games. He is a first gamer for us. I don't understand why we would use him as sub when he could potentially come on in the last quarter with scores tight and be in a game changing position. Hannebery is a very different case. I just don't want to see him pull an O'Shea and lose whatever confidence he has.

Haha, sorry.

All those reasons are in favour of him being a sub imo. Bit harsh to comparing to O'Shea already but I'd rather brain farts for only a quarter rather than 3 or more.

Riders of Rohan said:

Fuuuuu why close the other thread while I'm replying. I lost it.

Anyways my point was Armstrong has never played a game with the senior group at any stage, no practice games, no nab cup games. He is a first gamer for us. I don't understand why we would use him as sub when he could potentially come on in the last quarter with scores tight and be in a game changing position. Hannebery is a very different case. I just don't want to see him pull an O'Shea and lose whatever confidence he has.

Click to expand...

I was also frustrated because what you said in the other thread was also innacurate.

4 debut players for the swans last year. Sumner, Gordon, Johnson and Parker and only Parker started as the sub.

That was a game against Port and was the correct decision as 2011 Luke Parker was a natural for the game but his tank was underdeveloped for full matches.

Add to that how is the Hanners scenario different? in fact it's quite similar really.

Nor did Everett or Spangher, the two swans first gamer's with experience elsewhere start as subs in their first match.

Your right on the debutants, forgot about Johnson feels like he's been part of the team for years and forgot nipper started.

Hannebery is different as he played in the NAB Cup and played the first game before starting as sub in the second, on top of that he has spent 3 years playing with this group.

ROK in the midfield group doing drills. #willwehaveaforwardlinetoday

Riders of Rohan said:

Your right on the debutants, forgot about Johnson feels like he's been part of the team for years and forgot nipper started.

Hannebery is different as he played in the NAB Cup and played the first game before starting as sub in the second, on top of that he has spent 3 years playing with this group.

Click to expand...

Hanners missed games through the nab cup after an injury their is a similarity.

when he played against GWS he looked short of the run needed. Than came back through the subs spot a fortnight later and turned it on with intensity than came in for a full game.

Armstrongs pre season was interrupted more heavily than Dans's was and while yes he's been running through the ressies the level down never replicates the intensity. The subs spot for his first week at least is the right spot for him and more importantly for the team.

Gah, I know you're probably right, but I still wanted to see Armstrong playing from the first bounce. I'm trying to make valid reasons why it should have been so

Why aren't you at the game Aussie?

Broke my toe two weeks ago and can't be f'd hobbling around.

In other words I'm soft and lazy. If it was Goodes' milestone game I probably would have made the extra effort.

Riders of Rohan said:

Gah, I know you're probably right, but I still wanted to see Armstrong playing from the first bounce. I'm trying to make valid reasons why it should have been so

Click to expand...

Well fair enough. I dont think you need to worry about an O'Shea moment though, he may have kicking issues but his hands are cleaner that that.

AUSSIE GUN said:

In other words I'm soft and lazy. If it was Goodes' milestone game I probably would have made the extra effort.

Click to expand...

Why? It is a proven fact that our players don' put in any effort when it's a milestone game

swansfan51 said:

Why? It is a proven fact that our players don' put in any effort when it's a milestone game

Click to expand...

They did for MOLS 300th

Showers going through Penrith

Poor Rohan...looked ugly

Shit. Looks like Rohan has a broken leg.

OMFG....can't believe it.

Poor kid

Well ****.

Great. Rohan's season over.

****kkkkk right in front of me

Looked like his ankle to me. Not sure if that makes it better.

Massive blow to our season and I hope Rohan himself is okay.

Well Armstrong gets a full game after all

Terrible looking injury, saw the replay. Best of luck Gary, I really hope it's not as bad as it looks.

If we win this after all this I'll walk home naked singing the club song all the way.

*actually won't

So ****ing shattered about Rohan. Don't even care about the result just hope it's not too bad even though I can't see how it isn't.