Prediction Round 15, 2024: Changes vs Essendon

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I had a dollar for every post over the years when after the fact we post "why did they come straight back in they needed a run in the WAFL first."
It depends on the circumstance no? In this one it appears obvious that the post bye round has been the target for several weeks, no doubt with a period of strong conditioning work.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Geez, Allen Waterman Darling Maric and a resting ruck?

Might be a decent starting lineup if we were playing basketball, not sure about it as an AFL forward line
Almost like they are going to leave Williams out. Dunno who fill in ruck would be though, maybe Edwards if he plays.
 
Conditioning work is irrelevant. He hasn't played a match in months and post game its almost a lock that Simmo points out it's his first game back so off course he's gassed as if it's the most obvious thing in the world. Meanwhile we have players who are match hardened already doing well in the position. And that is IF we wanted to play 6 key position forwards of whatever it's up to now, which we probably don't want if running out the game is a priority.
 
Chesser, Rotham, B Will and Culley with Brockman sub is my guess.

Gaff could hold his spot but I think if Simmo was serious about what he said at the start of the year would think he is a big chance to now be squeezed out.

BWill in the forward line annoys me but we don't have a chop out ruck otherwise. I would've compensated by dropping Darling but here we are.

Brockman should be eased back as sub and frankly is a good type for the role anyway.

Hedwards v Rotham is close to a coin toss but we need the extra run and Essendon don't have enough threatening talls anyway.

Culley earned his recall, can't drop him yet.

And no room for Hutch obviously.
 
I'm sorry, but I just love this forward line so much:

Darling, Allen, Maric
Williams, Waterman, Culley/Hutchinson

It really is kinda tragic Brander didn't work out. Imagine a forward line with 6 CHF instead of a mere 5. But hear me out, Rotham in but Harry Edwards to CHB. Then,

Darling, Allen, Maric
Williams, McGovern, Waterman.

Now, THAT! is a forward line.
 
Pretty sure that’s to do with the absolute embarrassment of a midfield display. We have scored very freely when the midfield has performed.

It’s the midfield’s fault we kicked 2.15 in three quarters?
 
It’s the midfield’s fault we kicked 2.15 in three quarters?
I mean darling and Cripps kicked 2 goals 6 between them which is a huge anomaly. The other players who kicked more points than goals were culley, sheed, McGovern, Maric and Hutchinson. Only two of those are forwards.

If you think norths absolute dominance early was because of our forwards and not our mids I’m not sure what to say.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

From the team sheets my guessed final changes:
Gaff -> Hunt
Sheed -> Brockman, moving Petch into the middle(Petch named on-ball)
Hutch -> Allen

One of Rotham or Edwards to play, its a coin flip which way they go. Last time we played Essendon we dropped Edwards and went with Rotham TB and Gov as our 3 talls so I wouldnt be surprised if thats how we end up this time.

Sub to be one of JJ or Brockman
 
I mean darling and Cripps kicked 2 goals 6 between them which is a huge anomaly. The other players who kicked more points than goals were culley, sheed, McGovern, Maric and Hutchinson. Only two of those are forwards.

If you think norths absolute dominance early was because of our forwards and not our mids I’m not sure what to say.

Can’t it be both?
 
Players +190cm in named squads:

West Coast (14) -
202 - Flynn
201 - Williams
200 - Edwards
197 - Barrass
197 - McGovern
196 - Allen
196 - Maric
194 - Culley
193 - Rotham
192 - Waterman
191 - Darling
191 - Yeo
191 - Ginbey
191 - Hough

Essendon (13) -
205 - Draper
203 - Wright
202 - McKay
201 - Goldstein
200 - Cox
196 - Jones
195 - Ridley
193 - Caddy
193 - Laverde
192 - Langford
192 - Stringer
192 - Martin
192 - Setterfield

When compared to Essendon we’re not notably taller by any stretch
 
I know he's contacted but he's no where near required next year.

First eagle to 350 games. We've come this far, be a shame to end it now when we haven't even properly tried him in the midfield yet.

Seriously though what does it matter. We are tanking for sure now let's just enjoy the absurdity of it.
 
Players +190cm in named squads:

West Coast (14) -
202 - Flynn
201 - Williams
200 - Edwards
197 - Barrass
197 - McGovern
196 - Allen
196 - Maric
194 - Culley
193 - Rotham
192 - Waterman
191 - Darling
191 - Yeo
191 - Ginbey
191 - Hough

Essendon (13) -
205 - Draper
203 - Wright
202 - McKay
201 - Goldstein
200 - Cox
196 - Jones
195 - Ridley
193 - Caddy
193 - Laverde
192 - Langford
192 - Stringer
192 - Martin
192 - Setterfield

When compared to Essendon we’re not notably taller by any stretch
God Dammit Keys, you and your facts are not welcome here!
 
Last edited:
Players +190cm in named squads:

West Coast (14) -
202 - Flynn
201 - Williams
200 - Edwards
197 - Barrass
197 - McGovern
196 - Allen
196 - Maric
194 - Culley
193 - Rotham
192 - Waterman
191 - Darling
191 - Yeo
191 - Ginbey
191 - Hough

Essendon (13) -
205 - Draper
203 - Wright
202 - McKay
201 - Goldstein
200 - Cox
196 - Jones
195 - Ridley
193 - Caddy
193 - Laverde
192 - Langford
192 - Stringer
192 - Martin
192 - Setterfield

When compared to Essendon we’re not notably taller by any stretch

Our feelings don't care about your facts old man!
 
I mean our expected score from the game was 75 and we scored 65. A lot of our misses weren’t high quality chances.

When yeo started dominating in the last we scored with ease.

What was our expected score at 3/4 time when we had 27?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top