Unofficial Preview Prelim discussion v Demons/Blues / Gunston watch.

[dlanod]

Looking for a preview writer for it!

PM me!

Edit: thanks Section 5

 

[3KZ is Football]

Yep, Gunston in would make our defensive pressure and run significantly worse and could affect the way our current attacking play is humming along, particularly could affect Rayner's role.

Absolutely. It is interesting that for years the orthodoxy at Brisbane was that we needed someone to play the role that McStay was designated. Long leads up the ground and turning up at marking contests, with the idea that bringing the ball to ground was just as important as marking it. When McStay left, Fagan, our list managers, or whoever, formed the view that we needed to recruit someone to perform the ‘McStay Role’ and lo and behold, we draft our third mature aged Hawthorn recruit, Jack Gunston on a multi-year deal. The problem with this decision was twofold:
1. It basically locked out Fullerton, who was already on our list.
2. It very much looked like the idea of a forward line built around Daniher, Hipwood, Rayner and Cameron was not properly considered. This was evident during the season when Fagan was ‘umming and aahing’ about not being sure which was better, a two or three talls forward set up.

All this is water under the bridge, especially because, as fate would have it, events made the decision for Fagan. With Gunston injured, Fagan could have brought Fullerton into the Seniors if he thought the set up that included Gunston was strategically the best option, but he didn’t. Instead we have gone with the ‘two talls’ option and it has been demonstrated to be the best option by a mile. Under this model, our forward line has never looked better, especially as Rayner has stepped up and is in career best form.

This is why we can’t, and Fagan won’t, select Gunston for the rest of the year, irrespective of how fit Gunston looks on the track. There is the highly relevant fact that he is short on match practise, but more importantly he is simply not required.

 

[mpal6]

I'm starting to believe this is our year !

2021 Cash convertors ad


2022 Cash convertors ad


2023 Cash convertors ad

 

[HereIGoAgain]

Absolutely. It is interesting that for years the orthodoxy at Brisbane was that we needed someone to play the role that McStay was designated. Long leads up the ground and turning up at marking contests, with the idea that bringing the ball to ground was just as important as marking it. When McStay left, Fagan, our list managers, or whoever, formed the view that we needed to recruit someone to perform the ‘McStay Role’ and lo and behold, we draft our third mature aged Hawthorn recruit, Jack Gunston on a multi-year deal. The problem with this decision was twofold:
1. It basically locked out Fullerton, who was already on our list.
2. It very much looked like the idea of a forward line built around Daniher, Hipwood, Rayner and Cameron was not properly considered. This was evident during the season when Fagan was ‘umming and aahing’ about not being sure which was better, a two or three talls forward set up.

All this is water under the bridge, especially because, as fate would have it, events made the decision for Fagan. With Gunston injured, Fagan could have brought Fullerton into the Seniors if he thought the set up that included Gunston was strategically the best option, but he didn’t. Instead we have gone with the ‘two talls’ option and it has been demonstrated to be the best option by a mile. Under this model, our forward line has never looked better, especially as Rayner has stepped up and is in career best form.

This is why we can’t, and Fagan won’t, select Gunston for the rest of the year, irrespective of how fit Gunston looks on the track. There is the highly relevant fact that he is short on match practise, but more importantly he is simply not required.

Perhaps Gunston in decision was made partly because it wasn't guaranteed that Fullarton was going to make it. So Fullarton not locked out, just not good enough.

 

[Nunez]

If the coaches wants Gunston over Dev I'm looking to back them in. They have earned that.

Dev was very unimpressive last night with the ball. Missed so many handballs. 7 touches for only one tackle. He was given 8 CBAs too.

I'd back him in to respond, but I absolutely think Gunston would make us a better team than Dev does - it's more a matter of whether doing so would hurt our structure which I would not want to risk.

Either way, the coaches know what they're doing and will make the best call I am certain. Either way - playing Gunston or Dev will not change the result of the prelim.

 

[Gadzorks]

If the coaches wants Gunston over Dev I'm looking to back them in. They have earned that.

Dev was very unimpressive last night with the ball. Missed so many handballs. 7 touches for only one tackle. He was given 8 CBAs too.

I'd back him in to respond, but I absolutely think Gunston would make us a better team than Dev does - it's more a matter of whether doing so would hurt our structure which I would not want to risk.

Either way, the coaches know what they're doing and will make the best call I am certain. Either way - playing Gunston or Dev will not change the result of the prelim.

Seems to me that we aren't going to get all the forwards clicking at the same time.

One player has a role that doesn't look great - trying to create space and staying out of the others way while creating pressure on opposition defenders.

When gunston plays, rayner looks lost.

I'd prefer dev looking lost to rayner every day of the week.

 

[Nunez]

Seems to me that we aren't going to get all the forwards clicking at the same time.

One player has a role that doesn't look great - trying to create space and staying out of the others way while creating pressure on opposition defenders.

When gunston plays, rayner looks lost.

I'd prefer dev looking lost to rayner every day of the week.

Rayner had a fantastic game the week before Gunston got injured. In that game, he spent a lot of time up the ground and the players looked to transition through him which worked quite well.

I agree though, you'd want to be sure of how you'll use Rayner to maximise his damage if you were to bring Gunston in. I am confident that if we do bring him in, it will work - especially with two weeks to really hone in on the gameplan.

 

[M Malice]

I watched the game again this morning and Dev while not great did some good tap ons, blocks and provided unrewarded running thus drawing a defender away.

Gunston provides nothing that we don't already have, it would make us 1 midfield option short.

This our best available team by a fair way IMO, the only change on a fully fit list would be Ashcroft in for Robertson.

 

[Nunez]

I watched the game again this morning and Dev while not great did some good tap ons, blocks and provided unrewarded running thus drawing a defender away.

Gunston provides nothing that we don't already have, it would make us 1 midfield option short.

This our best available team by a fair way IMO, the only change on a fully fit list would be Ashcroft in for Robertson.

I think it would be risky debuting Levi in a prelim... **** it I'm in!

 

[3KZ is Football]

Dev Robertson hasn’t had his strongest two weeks, but I don’t know that I would contemplate dropping him. Even if he was dropped, it only makes sense to swap him out for a similar player like Mathieson or maybe we give Tunstill another run. Like for like.

People who want Gunston back in the team need to do better than simply selecting the player with the lowest statistical return and suggesting that Gunston should have their spot in the 22. It’s not as simple as that. It would mean we need to make changes to a winning formula.

People supporting Gunston’s selection need to tell us which of our current forward line they would drop, because that’s where Gunston would be playing. Should we drop Ah Chee? Rayner? McCarthy?

 

[Nunez]

Dev Robertson hasn’t had his strongest two weeks, but I don’t know that I would contemplate dropping him. Even if he was dropped, it only makes sense to swap him out for a similar player like Mathieson or maybe we give Tunstill another run. Like for like.

People who want Gunston back in the team need to do better than simply selecting the player with the lowest statistical return and suggesting that Gunston should have their spot in the 22. It’s not as simple as that. It would mean we need to make changes to a winning formula.

People supporting Gunston’s selection need to tell us which of our current forward line they would drop, because that’s where Gunston would be playing. Should we drop Ah Chee? Rayner? McCarthy?

Dev would be the one to be dropped for Gunston.

I am in the do not fix what's not broke camp, but the coaches should be backed in that whatever decision they make. It's not going to win or lose us a prelim - we are much bigger than any one player.

 

[Sproj]

On a side note, Lohmann bust his collarbone in ressies?

 

[3KZ is Football]

Dev would be the one to be dropped for Gunston.

I am in the do not fix what's not broke camp, but the coaches should be backed in that whatever decision they make. It's not going to win or lose us a prelim - we are much bigger than any one player.

See I’m not sure about that. If Gunston was selected and he played like he did against Adelaide in Adelaide or Hawthorn at the MCG, it might just cost us a Preliminary or Grand Final.

 

[Nunez]

See I’m not sure about that. If Gunston was selected and he played like he did against Adelaide in Adelaide or Hawthorn at the MCG, it might just cost us a Preliminary or Grand Final.

There is precisely no chance he is selected unless he is as fit and ready as he was when he returned after the training block.

 

[mpal6]

Dev would be the one to be dropped for Gunston.

I am in the do not fix what's not broke camp, but the coaches should be backed in that whatever decision they make. It's not going to win or lose us a prelim - we are much bigger than any one player.

It might actually. Fitting Gunston in would push Rayner into no-man's land again and upset that forward line chemistry.

If Gunston goes into that forward line and if I was opposition tactician, I'd straightaway put my best rebounding defender on him and give them full license to run off him every single time. If it's Carlton that'll be Saad/Docherty and if it's Melbourne that has to be McVee/Rivers.

 

[knaf]

On a side note, Lohmann bust his collarbone in ressies?

If thats a question, yes it appears so.

 

[Chezz]

Great win last night Rayner and Daniher were unbelievable. But the key was defensive pressure across the ground, especially around stoppage. Would love to see that sort of intensity if we make it to the MCG. I wouldn’t be changing the team apart from the sub. For me Lyons still looks cooked and isn’t moving well, I’d would bring in Matho as sub after dominating again in the reserves win yesterday.

 

[M Malice]

There is precisely no chance he is selected unless he is as fit and ready as he was when he returned after the training block.

If he hasn't improved his pace he offers nothing we don't already have, his good game first back from his training block has a huge caveat on it... it was against one of the worst AFL line ups this century.

 

[HereIGoAgain]

Even if we back the decision to bring Gunston in and then it doesn't work then it will be more than just questions asked. A sizable part of the supporters will be furious and rightly so. High stakes decision.

 

[martinson]

I'm a bit in the camp that you're only as strong as your weakest link and if anyone's really vulnerable in a key aspect of the game it gets targeted and and can cost you.

 

[Squizz89]

I reckon that if the coaching staff had any intention of bringing Jack back off a 6 week break for a prelim, then Cam pretty much answered emphatically last night with his own performance, as to why that would be a bad idea.

Legitimately won us the game in the first half playing that role.

 

[Nunez]

It might actually. Fitting Gunston in would push Rayner into no-man's land again and upset that forward line chemistry.

If Gunston goes into that forward line and if I was opposition tactician, I'd straightaway put my best rebounding defender on him and give them full license to run off him every single time. If it's Carlton that'll be Saad/Docherty and if it's Melbourne that has to be McVee/Rivers.

I thought they finally worked out how to work together in the game against Fremantle. We didn't get to see them back it up as Gunston got injured the week later.

If he does play and the opposition use their small defender on him - they will regret it very quickly when our mids get on top and play through Jack.

I'd still leave him out, but I don't think it's as doomsday as some seem to think if he plays.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Cam played a very different role to what Gunston would IMO

One of his goals was from a centre clearance and 2 were from handball receives

 

[Section 5]

Dev would be the one to be dropped for Gunston.

I am in the do not fix what's not broke camp, but the coaches should be backed in that whatever decision they make. It's not going to win or lose us a prelim - we are much bigger than any one player.

I agree that the coaches would know if Gunston is ready to play around the 23/9/23.
Also, Gunston has lots of finals experience so that is not an issue.
I am not sure if Gunston is eligible to even get a game in the VFL finals.

So, if he gets a go in the PF it will be 6 weeks without a game of normal AFL. Forget about how hard he may train.
The PF is no normal game of AFL.
If it were one of these guys below i would take a gamble but Gunston has not shown enough this year to belong in this group.
In games played order: Zorko, Neale, Cameron, Andrews, Daniher, McCluggage, Hipwood, McCarthy, Dunkley & Berry.
I have left quite a lot of players off the list as i believe 6 weeks without playing going into a PF they most likely miss out.

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

Dev hardly got a disposal, fumbled a few times

He was poor but apart from Matho we have no one of his size to bring in

 

[Tom14]

Dev was quiet but still cracked in off the ball, something that neither JL or matho can do. I can't see how we could risk Gunston given the limited preparation.

I'd possibly consider playing fort if Melbourne won just so he can spell oscar in the first 2.5 quarters with the plan that he will be subbed out, injuries permitting. I'm no fan of the 2 ruck or 3 tall structure per se, but Gawn's dominance in the 4th quarter of round 18 was scary and perhaps Oscar would be fresher with backup.