TOPIC:

Afl done Sat. Two good teams with aspirations. 3000 will attend but Ducks wil win

Carn you dees. Play with heart, determination and a fierce attitude.

B J Irons J Risol S Lynch
HB B Keast H Busher M Morton
C R Richardson D White C Manuel
HF P Bevan J Morton M Boyle
FF B Stack M Moody C Collard
F J Houghton M Sinclair D O'Sullivan
Int. C Morton, B Power, M Hunt, N Kane, G Ugle, M Florio, K Hug, J Leeson
In S Lynch, M Hunt, B Power, M Moody, M Sinclair,
Out M Leyendekkers,


Swan Districts

B J Blight T Ames A Howard
HB M Riggio J Simpson G Jetta
C A Faulkner K Ugle M Rogers
HF B Jetta T Notte R Davis
FF R Cary T Geappen A Elari
F N Blakely C Blakely M Jukes
Emergemcy R Riddoch
Int. A Anderson, B Latch, T Casserly, B Boekhorst, J Nuich, J Manton, J Burnham, N Broad
In J Blight, J Manton, J Burnham, J Nuich, R Riddoch,

I'll say it again. Lynch a long way off a league spot.

Teams shouldn't make changes for the sake of it.

Borrett in for Leyendeckers and Moody in for (Florio or Hug) fair enough but that's it for this week.

These boys in the Ressies can't have been going that well as they are only one from three.

Lynch and Sinclair one of the best in the reserves first win aga inst WP. Hug and Richardson did nothing in the league game against WP. We clearly are getting killed in the midfield. Changes to the midfield are required imo.

But DD would you not agree that 3 changes in a week is destabilising.

The ABC guys last week mentioned that teams that make 5 changes never win.

The guys on the park know exactly who is beside them and what they are capable of when there are little or no changes.

It would be my guess that the best teams have the least amount of players going through.

The argument to counter that will be "that's because the picked players are winning and therefore there is no need to change them" but it could also have something to do with what i have said above.

I also think players should play in the same possie every week. Start on the same flank etc. The team sheet should be submitted with where the players are playing as well. Helps with visualising your self winning.

Worsfold knew McKenna and Brenan and Pyke and Jacko and White were down back and each new what to do and expect form the other in 92. They were named in that position every week etc etc.

So DD, if you agree to the two changes I have suggested, but then put your two or three in as well I think it would be a disaster and an unnecessary one as we have only lost one game in the last 7 minutes of our last game.

Time For a Flag wrote: But DD would you not agree that 3 changes in a week is destabilising.

The ABC guys last week mentioned that teams that make 5 changes never win.

The guys on the park know exactly who is beside them and what they are capable of when there are little or no changes.

It would be my guess that the best teams have the least amount of players going through.

The argument to counter that will be "that's because the picked players are winning and therefore there is no need to change them" but it could also have something to do with what i have said above.

I also think players should play in the same possie every week. Start on the same flank etc. The team sheet should be submitted with where the players are playing as well. Helps with visualising your self winning.

Worsfold knew McKenna and Brenan and Pyke and Jacko and White were down back and each new what to do and expect form the other in 92. They were named in that position every week etc etc.

So DD, if you agree to the two changes I have suggested, but then put your two or three in as well I think it would be a disaster and an unnecessary one as we have only lost one game in the last 7 minutes of our last game.

Err no changes are often made when you lose games of footy get a clue.

Thanks Pete. Do they call you Mr Constructive?

Time For a Flag wrote: Thanks Pete. Do they call you Mr Constructive?

Why?? I pulled you up on a stupid comment we've beaten two shit sides lets not get carried away the team that lost to WP wasn't good enough that's why changes needed to be made.

Peter North wrote:

Time For a Flag wrote: Thanks Pete. Do they call you Mr Constructive?

Why?? I pulled you up on a stupid comment we've beaten two shit sides lets not get carried away the team that lost to WP wasn't good enough that's why changes needed to be made.

Because you put a one liner in that involved an insult and didn't address the question about how many changes are too many or address anything else written.

Never a need for ad hominem. Been far to much of it on these sort of sites over the years.