What on earth is wrong with Bailey & his crew rushing back players - its not as if we are lacking in depth.

Hawthorn made Luke Hodge have a run in their seconds before bringing him back.

We rushed back Frawley & his first match back he was poor then we rushed back Petterd who did ok as the sub but then had a poor match. Not content with this we rushed back Morton who had a shocker as the sub then was reasonable last match.

All 3 should have had a run at Casey.

Edited April 21, 201114 yr by High Tower
edited title

What on earth is wrong with Bailey & his crew rushing back players - its not as if we are lacking in depth.

Hawthorn made Luke Hodge have a run in their seconds before bringing him back.

We rushed back Frawley & his first match back he was poor then we rushed back Petterd who did ok as the sub but then had a poor match. Not content with this we rushed back Morton who had a shocker as the sub then was reasonable last match.

All 3 should have had a run at Casey.

Seriously. I get your point, but in the grand scheme of things, they're all better off now aren't they ? Being 2-1-1 and all considered.

They are all important players, this year is another year to pump games into out talent - ipso facto, we put them in straight away. It should be known that Frawley and Morton had very good pre-seasons before they became injured.

The club have continuously said they want to get continuity with the playing group going forward. These players are obviously the future so the more they play together the better, regardless if they are a little underdone. There's no use playing Warnock in Frawleys spot as he is a different player to Frawley and all players around him will have to alter their game style to suit. I fully support what the clubs doing.

Petterd played Round 1, 2011. Rushed back from a minor hamstring...but wasn't he the sub and showed be was fit on the day? Yep...gotcha.

Frawley, is our most important player. He could have played round 1 also but was given an extra week. Not my definition of rushed back.

Morton had a finger injury so didn't really lose fitness. Came back as the sub, perfectly fine decision.

Imagine if we play Scully before round 12. You would probably call that rushing him back too.

There is also the school of thought in all clubs that some players come back from lay offs ready and raring to go and some need time to work back to acceptable form

What on earth is wrong with Bailey & his crew rushing back players - its not as if we are lacking in depth.

Hawthorn made Luke Hodge have a run in their seconds before bringing him back.

We rushed back Frawley & his first match back he was poor then we rushed back Petterd who did ok as the sub but then had a poor match. Not content with this we rushed back Morton who had a shocker as the sub then was reasonable last match.

All 3 should have had a run at Casey.

I initially thought the same thing,,, but the thing thats becoming clear is that the footy dept' it seems is trying to get to their percieved best 22, as quickly as possible. To get those players playing as much footy together as possible. We've witnessed those as you said, rushed back in, and we've seen Tapscott brought in quickly after last years injuries, and Gys brought in quickly after a quick dip in the VFL.

I can see it's going to be difficult to break into the team in not too distant future.

This I guess will give are certain steadiness to both the Dees, and to the Casey team. Thats Not a bad thing to have.

What on earth is wrong with Bailey & his crew rushing back players - its not as if we are lacking in depth.

Hawthorn made Luke Hodge have a run in their seconds before bringing him back.

We rushed back Frawley & his first match back he was poor then we rushed back Petterd who did ok as the sub but then had a poor match. Not content with this we rushed back Morton who had a shocker as the sub then was reasonable last match.

All 3 should have had a run at Casey.

Never let the facts get in the way of good rant.

Honestly. Hodge had an achilles injury and needed the run in the VFL as part of the rehab. The other players had different injuries with different severities and were able to sustain different levels of match fitness coming into their first match.

Misguided complaint at best.

How did Morton and Frawley go against the Gold Coast Schoolies? Reasonable, I would have thought, and also reasonable vindication of the selection policies.

Perhaps what's of more interest is their use of Watts as a sub. This morning on SEN Malthouse stated that they would never make a player a sub if that player was down on form, or confidence. His premise was that that would only compound the problem. Naturally he also stated that he wasn't privy to Melbourne's MC discussions.

I wonder if the MC may have reconsidered their use of Watts last Sunday.

When I read the title of this blog I thought that it was going to be about our club's major review process currently underway, and along the lines of, Why are we doing it during the season, what if it suggests that the coaching's no good, or that major structures aren't right. Wouldn't it undermine the team's chances? With the Age article this morning suggesting that schwabby is having a go at Bailey there is potential for major disruption. Regarding injuries, last year the constant criticism was that a player was always a week or two away and that was a week or two away from Casey, not the Firsts.

How did Morton and Frawley go against the Gold Coast Schoolies? Reasonable, I would have thought, and also reasonable vindication of the selection policies.

not taking sides here, but Frawley had a very below par game against GC when he should have had a cracker given the opposition.

and Morton was just so-so really

Perhaps what's of more interest is their use of Watts as a sub. This morning on SEN Malthouse stated that they would never make a player a sub if that player was down on form, or confidence. His premise was that that would only compound the problem. Naturally he also stated that he wasn't privy to Melbourne's MC discussions.

I wonder if the MC may have reconsidered their use of Watts last Sunday.

It is a little puzzling. If they were hoping for impact, even more puzzling, taking into account form. What might be explainable is they see the sub as an opition for "impact" in some games, and as a rotational option for others. Granted, it's debatable without really knowing.

Clearly Collingwood, given what has been discussed from members of their clubs inner sanctum have been using it randomly which might suggest for now they are using it on a rotational basis. Injuries permitted of course.

It is a little puzzling. If they were hoping for impact, even more puzzling, taking into account form. What might be explainable is they see the sub as an opition for "impact" in some games, and as a rotational option for others. Granted, it's debatable without really knowing.

Clearly Collingwood, given what has been discussed from members of their clubs inner sanctum have been using it randomly which might suggest for now they are using it on a rotational basis. Injuries permitted of course.

simply a matter of him being the 22nd best player available on the day

simply a matter of him being the 22nd best player available on the day

It would be far from being that simple, although that is a very simple way of looking at it.

Perhaps what's of more interest is their use of Watts as a sub. This morning on SEN Malthouse stated that they would never make a player a sub if that player was down on form, or confidence. His premise was that that would only compound the problem. Naturally he also stated that he wasn't privy to Melbourne's MC discussions.

I wonder if the MC may have reconsidered their use of Watts last Sunday.

I agree with Malthouse there.

I thought our use of Watts was terrible against GCS. There are 2 reasons. One is that the sub should, in my view, be for an injection of a running player for best impact. The more important reason is that confidence is the key issue with Jack Watts. We have no choice but to persevere with getting games into him - either at Casey or in the seniors. Surely, against the lowly Suns, he should have been given a full game for his confidence. If he couldn't perform acceptably in that environment, back to Casey. By subbing him, we put him under enormous pressure to perform in the quarter he gets. I think it was poor decision making - and in fact I think our FD has been in the habit of making poor decisions in 2011.

I agree with Malthouse there.

I thought our use of Watts was terrible against GCS. There are 2 reasons. One is that the sub should, in my view, be for an injection of a running player for best impact. The more important reason is that confidence is the key issue with Jack Watts. We have no choice but to persevere with getting games into him - either at Casey or in the seniors. Surely, against the lowly Suns, he should have been given a full game for his confidence. If he couldn't perform acceptably in that environment, back to Casey. By subbing him, we put him under enormous pressure to perform in the quarter he gets. I think it was poor decision making - and in fact I think our FD has been in the habit of making poor decisions in 2011.

Luckily he did make something of an impact, the stats sheet was good for him considering only a quarter played.

If he doesn't play against Wet Toast, I'll be unhappy.

In previous years have we generally made guys head back to the VFL after a couple of weeks without playing? I thought that was the case.

It is a little puzzling. If they were hoping for impact, even more puzzling, taking into account form. What might be explainable is they see the sub as an opition for "impact" in some games, and as a rotational option for others. Granted, it's debatable without really knowing.

Clearly Collingwood, given what has been discussed from members of their clubs inner sanctum have been using it randomly which might suggest for now they are using it on a rotational basis. Injuries permitted of course.

I mentioned it in another thread, but a bunch of media types have been critical of the decision and when West was pressed on it pre-game he gave a pretty nothing answer. I don't see that it was a good move.

It was a poor decision, as is playing Dunn over Petterd, as is dumping Maric so quickly after his stellar preseason (deserved a month of football). But mostly as is playing an outdated gameplan. The strange thing is I've been a fan of Bailey's in the past and I'm starting to wonder if his assistants, Connolly included, are up to scratch.

I don't have a problem with the notion that these guys could have used a run at Casey to find touch, but the three games in which they had their returns were a draw and two wins. It can't be all bad.

It was a poor decision, as is playing Dunn over Petterd, as is dumping Maric so quickly after his stellar preseason (deserved a month of football). But mostly as is playing an outdated gameplan. The strange thing is I've been a fan of Bailey's in the past and I'm starting to wonder if his assistants, Connolly included, are up to scratch.

Maric had multiple chances to kick easy goals in the games he played and he blew it. Petterd was lazy against Hawthorn and deserved to be dropped.

I'm sick of this 'outdated gameplan' crap I've been reading on here lately, how does anyone here know how football will be played in 3-4 years time?

Maric had multiple chances to kick easy goals in the games he played and he blew it. Petterd was lazy against Hawthorn and deserved to be dropped.

I'm sick of this 'outdated gameplan' crap I've been reading on here lately, how does anyone here know how football will be played in 3-4 years time?

Go for it ... well done!

Never let the facts get in the way of good rant.

Honestly. Hodge had an achilles injury and needed the run in the VFL as part of the rehab. The other players had different injuries with different severities and were able to sustain different levels of match fitness coming into their first match.

Misguided complaint at best.

Hardly. A fair assumption made from what was offered by the 3 mentioned in the OP.

Assuming that is all the majority of us 'punters' can make from the stands.

MFC Brains Trust, is that an oxymoron like Army Intelligence?

edit sp

Edited April 22, 201114 yr by daisycutter

I've been a fan of Bailey's in the past and I'm starting to wonder if his assistants, Connolly included, are up to scratch.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe that Connolly has much if anything to do with the playing side of things. I don't think he even sits in the coach's box on gameday.