Best 22 for Round 1, 2017

[DemonLad5 1,637]

28 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Why has everyone picked Weideman? Promising and potential yes but not afl standard yet. 

Because Pederson and Smith haven't had a run yet and I can garuntee you Weed will play against WCE.

He doesn't need to average 15 touches and a few goals a game to make an impact. He always creates a contest and does the little things. Pederson is not part of future plans, but this bloke certainly is 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

5 minutes ago, DemonLad5 said:

Because Pederson and Smith haven't had a run yet and I can garuntee you Weed will play against WCE.

He doesn't need to average 15 touches and a few goals a game to make an impact. He always creates a contest and does the little things. Pederson is not part of future plans, but this bloke certainly is 

Future plans?

Let's try and win the flag this year, right now I'd be selecting Pedersen ahead of Weideman.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,132]

30 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Why has everyone picked Weideman? Promising and potential yes but not afl standard yet. 

I view him as similar to Oscar last year. Is doing enough and getting better and makes us look better structure wise. Is not ripping games apart but also is not getting beaten and most importantly creates space for Hogan and stops him being double teamed.  

[Wiseblood 24,636]

1 hour ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Why has everyone picked Weideman? Promising and potential yes but not afl standard yet. 

I'd say he's been picked because Goody is on record as saying we've tried to play close to our best side over the last few weeks.  It's a fair indication that they rate him and is a strong chance to play Round 1.

For the record, I don't necessarily think he is ready yet either, but I also think having him in the side allows Hogan to play up the ground and they want to get further game time into him.  

[Fat Tony 4,373]

Two rucks would be a terrible decision, especially on a fast Docklands track. Watts or Pedersen has to play as our second ruckman (or both) IMO. 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

21 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Two rucks would be a terrible decision, especially on a fast Docklands track. Watts or Pedersen has to play as our second ruckman (or both) IMO. 

With Spencer playing, Gawn was able to spend extended minutes up forward where he is a formidable force and provides a genuine target (without having to go off the ground).

Watts, Pedersen or Frost can provide a chop-out but only for short stints.

We need to manage Gawn very closely, we can't expect him to play as much as he did last year every year.

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

1 hour ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

I view him as similar to Oscar last year. Is doing enough and getting better and makes us look better structure wise. Is not ripping games apart but also is not getting beaten and most importantly creates space for Hogan and stops him being double teamed.  

 

33 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I'd say he's been picked because Goody is on record as saying we've tried to play close to our best side over the last few weeks.  It's a fair indication that they rate him and is a strong chance to play Round 1.

For the record, I don't necessarily think he is ready yet either, but I also think having him in the side allows Hogan to play up the ground and they want to get further game time into him.  

Last year was a genuine development year and we saw players promoted before having genuinely earned their spots (Hunt, Wagner, McDonald) and we saw others with no future but good form miss out.  This year is not a development year, this year is a year to get our best possible result.

I fully support playing Weideman in all practice games - at some point he will be a permanent feature and he could have been this year if he'd shown something.  But in two games he's had 12 possessions and one contested mark and kicked two "joe the goose" goals.  Yesterday, when we dominated the game, he was ineffectual as a tall forward.  If he plays against Saints they will have a low risk player to combat and that will allow them to put more resources to Hogan.

Watts must play round 1, if he doesn't we aren't serious.  For all the talk I don't get the Watts situation.  He's effectively had a two match penalty for "not showing the appropriate intensity at training" but "has done very well at training for 3 or so weeks".

What on earth happened to let it get to a situation that meant an appropriate penalty was at least 2 games?  Watts is not a rebellious difficult person.  He's a guy who is continually seeking advice and feedback.  How could it have got to a stage that he's at risk of missing?  The club have GPS data on every training session.  They have 2km time trial data and they would have weights data and probably a whole lot more.  Did nobody tell Watts he wasn't training hard enough and that if he didn't lift his game he'd not be selected? I'm befuddled (I love that word) by the situation.

On other selection decisions I think Garlett will play.  It was a 3 to 4 week injury and he had 5 weeks to go.  He doesn't need match practice he just needs to be switched on.  Kent and Tyson, assuming they play next week will get two games under their belt as they'll play for Casey the week before the season proper.  And Spencer doesn't get a spot R1 on Etihad.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,132]

I don't understand anyone thinking taking our number 1 weapon out of the equation for 50-60% game time in the hope he may kick a couple of goals is a good idea. Spencer did ok in the ruck yesterday but gave little around the ground and cant play forward. If Spencer could hold his own forward 60-70% and give Gawn a chop out would be the only way this would make any sense.

[Gator 16,891]

2 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Why has everyone picked Weideman? Promising and potential yes but not afl standard yet. 

You're not reading the tea leaves are you.

Goodwin has made it clear he's playing his best 24.

And the best way for Weideman to get better is by playing alongside Hogan, rather than Hulett.

[Gator 16,891]

Watts missing 2 games is a statement, not a penalty.  Players either deserve a game by measurable criteria or they don't. 

Weideman gave a gift goal to and missed a sitter from 25 in front vs Footscray.  Also, the over the top goals show he reads the play very well.

He may not be quite worthy of a senior game, but I don't see him as a liability either.   The more AFL games the quicker he'll develop.  Unlike Watts at the same age, Weideman has courage in the air.

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

8 minutes ago, ProDee said:

You're not reading the tea leaves are you.

Goodwin has made it clear he's playing his best 24.

And the best way for Weideman to get better is by playing alongside Hogan, rather than Hulett.

R1 is best 22.  You're last sentence is developing Weideman here, not playing best 22.  But I recognize that Weideman is a good chance to play round one (as is Smith) but if this happens then Goodwin's meaning of "best 22" is not mine.  My definition of best 22 is the 22 that gives you the best chance of winning the game. If your assertion is right then Goodwin is saying it's the best 22 to win games in the future.  Unless of course he thinks Weideman is best 22 now.  I haven't seen it.

[Vogon Poetry 2,095]

5 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Watts missing 2 games is a statement, not a penalty. 

No, I think it's both.  All things being equal we'd be in a better position if Watts had had the appropriate game time prior to R1.  He hasn't.  That hurts the team so it does penalize the team and the player.

But why on earth did it get to this stage?  Madness. 

[dieter 3,325]

6 hours ago, ProDee said:

Garlett will now be battling for round one.

I've said repeatedly Jetta might struggle to get a game this year and Joel Smith is presenting a strong case for inclusion.  Smith is exceptionally agile, athletic and fast.  I see someone like Membrey as the right matchup.

Hunt can play on a Lonie or Gresham type.

Watched the game today, saw a lot of Smith fumbles especially in the second quarter. I like the lad but I don't think he's ready yet.

[Binmans PA 25,899]

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

Two rucks would be a terrible decision, especially on a fast Docklands track. Watts or Pedersen has to play as our second ruckman (or both) IMO. 

Interesting time this. I reckon they're trying to harden Watts, so I can't see him playing Round 1. Make him burst the door down at Casey before selecting him. 

So that leaves Pedersen for mine. I think we can play Hogan, Pedersen and Weideman in the same team against St Kilda. Hogan will probably rotate between the midfield and sneaking forward, as well as a permanent forward (with a great record against St Kilda at Etihad). I'd expect Gawn to ruck 95% of the match though and only be taken out if he's being beaten by Hickey or for a very occasional rest. It's Round 1. We can afford to push Gawn.

35 minutes ago, dieter said:

Watched the game today, saw a lot of Smith fumbles especially in the second quarter. I like the lad but I don't think he's ready yet.

I think it'll be about how he backs up against the Eagles. If he gets those fumbles out of his game and lifts his intensity, it shows he's learnt something about 100% intensity, 100% of the time.

That moment where he was run down yesterday is simply not good enough, but if he learns from it as a young player and can put four quarters together (he managed 2 against the Dogs), he could play Round 1. 

He's a bit in the same boat as Weideman though. The more game time, the better. And I like the above comparison with OMac last year. Neither of them are quite there yet, but they need AFL minutes, not VFL minutes at this stage.

Edited February 26, 2017 by A F

[Gator 16,891]

26 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

No, I think it's both.  All things being equal we'd be in a better position if Watts had had the appropriate game time prior to R1.  He hasn't.  That hurts the team so it does penalize the team and the player.

But why on earth did it get to this stage?  Madness. 

It's not like Pedersen is Wayne Carey; and who here knows Weideman's role and how well he's playing it ?

As I said, Weideman may not have dominated, but he's hardly been a liability.  And not only did he gift Viney a goal, he dished one off to Hogan in the goal square early in the second when he marked Brayshaw's long left foot kick when matched by Weitering.

I like the structure Weitering gives and he allows Hogan to do a Roughead occasionally in the middle. 

Developing Weideman, while picking a strong 22 is hardly madness.  There are degrees of everything and Pedersen over Weideman is so inconsequential to me that the value of developing Weideman makes it a no brainer.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,132]

1 hour ago, Vogon Poetry said:

 

Last year was a genuine development year and we saw players promoted before having genuinely earned their spots (Hunt, Wagner, McDonald) and we saw others with no future but good form miss out.  This year is not a development year, this year is a year to get our best possible result.

I fully support playing Weideman in all practice games - at some point he will be a permanent feature and he could have been this year if he'd shown something.  But in two games he's had 12 possessions and one contested mark and kicked two "joe the goose" goals.  Yesterday, when we dominated the game, he was ineffectual as a tall forward.  If he plays against Saints they will have a low risk player to combat and that will allow them to put more resources to Hogan.

Watts must play round 1, if he doesn't we aren't serious.  For all the talk I don't get the Watts situation.  He's effectively had a two match penalty for "not showing the appropriate intensity at training" but "has done very well at training for 3 or so weeks".

What on earth happened to let it get to a situation that meant an appropriate penalty was at least 2 games?  Watts is not a rebellious difficult person.  He's a guy who is continually seeking advice and feedback.  How could it have got to a stage that he's at risk of missing?  The club have GPS data on every training session.  They have 2km time trial data and they would have weights data and probably a whole lot more.  Did nobody tell Watts he wasn't training hard enough and that if he didn't lift his game he'd not be selected? I'm befuddled (I love that word) by the situation.

On other selection decisions I think Garlett will play.  It was a 3 to 4 week injury and he had 5 weeks to go.  He doesn't need match practice he just needs to be switched on.  Kent and Tyson, assuming they play next week will get two games under their belt as they'll play for Casey the week before the season proper.  And Spencer doesn't get a spot R1 on Etihad.

Who are you playing ahead of Weideman? If Pederson I would not call him a high risk player would you? I would play him again this week which I suspect gets him a gig for round 1. I am not worried about his contested marks (Gawn the only player that took multiples yesterday. Gawn and Hogan the only with multiples against the dogs) more so that he creates space and options when we go forward (which he does very well).

I cant see how anyone can comment on Watts without knowing the exact reason and what led up to it. In saying that I would be very surprised if he does not play next JLT to see if he has addressed whatever is required for round 1.

Garlett plays if he gets a lead in game for Casey but I cant see him playing without. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by big_red_fire_engine

[DeeSpencer 23,061]

Weideman and Watts vs Spencer, Pedersen +/- Vanders has little to do with marks and goals.

It's:
- Running hard to provide options
- Forcing contests in the air
- Defensive pressure and tackling

If your tall forwards do all of these 3 the marks and goals will take care of themselves. 

Weed getting forward to get simple goals doesn't look that hard but it's smart forward play and good work rate. His aerial contesting has been really good. His defensive pressure has gone from a liability last year to decent enough this year. I think he's got Pedersen covered. If they made that decision based on preseason training I don't think the games would change their mind.

Spencer probably didn't do enough forward or do well enough against Carlton in the ruck to hold his spot if Watts is back in the team for the 3rd game.

Despite some shoddy ball use Vanders probably holds his spot because his run and contested work is exactly what the coaches want. If Watts is in form and Kent and Garlett are good to go then maybe he comes out.

[whatwhat say what 18,793]

part of what's lost us the game the last two years is that hickey has been the 'winner' over gawn.

why not try to play it differently and go with the two rucks?

very hard to see jetta, frost, watts, tyson or kent forcing their way into the side at the moment - i would think the last two are the more likely options. and when you consider garlett is going to be up against it to get back as well, that's six of what i would've thought at the end of the last year's trade / draft period as being part of our 'best 22' who won't necessarily be there, and really only three due to injuries.

[Gator 16,891]

I don't think Hickey has had any great victory, more-so he's nullified Gawn.  We couldn't counter their wide outside run through the wings and our zone defence was like Swiss cheese. 

I think our midfield and gameplan will be far superior round one this year.

[Dwight Schrute 16,722]

Melksham t McDonald hibberd 

hunt o McDonald Vince 

Salem. Viney  stretch 

petracca hogan vandenberg

garlett.  Weideman watts 

gawn.  Tyson.  Jones

lewis, brayshaw, spencer oliver 

[rpfc 27,392]

If Spencer plays, I find it easier to include Weideman. That may sound antithetical as the argument that a tall forward spot should be taken to be the back up ruck is a solid argument - those two are competing for similar spots.

But the argument that if we don't have Spencer then we need Pedersen to support Gawn is a compelling one.

If I had the run of match committee - I would play Spencer primary ruck in the games that are against ordinary opposition and/or ordinary midfields.

That will give Gawn relief from a brutal season, hopefully a 24+ week season...

[picket fence 15,060]

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

There's  a kinda Synergy here!!

But what would I know??

[No10 323]

25 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

Watts Watts Watts

There's  a kinda Synergy here!!

But what would I know??

I don't back Goodwin on this Watts move.   Roos did exactly the opposite with him, protected him.  Watts stepped up because he wanted to pay it back.

Also don't like the Hibberd / Melksham auto selection.  Prefer Frost and Jetta.   Goodwin is playing favourites.

[dee-tox 4,773]

After the first two JLT games the definite starters are: Hogan, Jones, Viney, Vince, Petracca, Gawn, Lewis and Salem. That leaves 16 places up for grabs. Healthy competition. 

[At the break of Gawn 3,474]

5 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

No, I think it's both.  All things being equal we'd be in a better position if Watts had had the appropriate game time prior to R1.  He hasn't.  That hurts the team so it does penalize the team and the player.

But why on earth did it get to this stage?  Madness. 

Watts only really has himself to blame if he's failed to do the work on the track. He probably also needs to do the back-up ruckman role again this year. Playing 2 rucks will hurt the midfield rotations too much and I can't see room for Pederson this year if we're going to develop Weids.