Changes v Bulldogs

[stuie 7,374]

Stu, I reckon the only thing worse than having the same players in the revolving door is making changes based on a sample size of one game. Suggesting to drop Garlett is dead set laughable. He wasn't clean with the ball, he dropped a sitter etc, sure, but surely he's got the credits up his sleeve to be given some benefit of the doubt.

You make changes that made the side better - that's why the same old names keep getting tossed up, because on balance they're the worst players in the side. There's no way there are better players than Garland and Garlett kicking about in the VFL at the moment. I'd say the same is true for Harmes at the moment, too.

Yep, sample size of one game. Hence why dropping Grimes, Michie, or Matt Jones should not happen after they were all decent today.

Every week here the majority of posters just want to drop the same people no matter how they played. I thought we were past the stage of playing the guys who had talent over the guys who were deserving? You can't say drop Grimes/Michie/Jones when they all had better games than the guys who I mentioned and you said won't be dropped. It's bad for culture.

[stuie 7,374]

Stu i reckon there are 3 key principles to think about during selection, in the following order:

Pick your best players

Form (and fitness)

Match ups

That is the precedent. To push out a player who is better than you they need to be horribly out of form and you need to be belting it.

To get selected based on match ups (i.e. extra tall) you need to be in form and able to push out a best 22 player, based on that form.

Obviously different players have different standings. So to push our Hogan is harder than pushing out Howe, for example.

Right now, I believe the reason it is only the bottom couple that keep getting swapped is because Roos has settled on which players will be part of our squad of 40 in a few years and which won't be. The "won'ts" have been rotated. Gawn has replaced Jamar on form but is now best 22.

There is little value in dropping someone who is otherwise best 22 unless someone has seriously good form.

Further, by keeping the core 22 together for ad many games as possible they develop synergy and learn to play ads a team. Constant changes will disrupt that

Great post, agree with a lot of it.

The point I'm arguing against is dropping guys just because they're the guys we "usually" drop. How would that have gone for Jetta? Dunn? McDonald? When they all had poor seasons at stages.

Grimes, Michie, and Matt Jones were all decent today, and there were a fair few players worse than them. Why would a team trying to build a competitive culture drop the guys who are performing and keep in the ones who aren't?

Think we need to decide if we're:

- Playing a core 22 to build synergy

- Playing guys who deserve a shot through form

- Have a list that is nowehere near good enough

Could be a mix of all 3, but I don't think we have anywhere near enough quality to just stick it out with a core 22 yet.

[stuie 7,374]

Based on your last line:

Out: Stuie

In: Inanimate object

Garlett out? FM, one bad game and you want to drop him.

I get that the logic went over your head, should not have expected anymore from BBO MK II.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,384]

I get that the logic went over your head, should not have expected anymore from BBO MK II.

The 'logic' sure did go over my head.

Based on this game alone we'd drop N Jones, Vince, Jetta, HL...

[stuie 7,374]

The 'logic' sure did go over my head.

Based on this game alone we'd drop N Jones, Vince, Jetta, HL...

You're gradually starting to get the point. I can hear the cogs turning from here...

Edited August 9, 2015 by stuie

[Nasher 33,047]

Yep, sample size of one game. Hence why dropping Grimes, Michie, or Matt Jones should not happen after they were all decent today.

Every week here the majority of posters just want to drop the same people no matter how they played. I thought we were past the stage of playing the guys who had talent over the guys who were deserving? You can't say drop Grimes/Michie/Jones when they all had better games than the guys who I mentioned and you said won't be dropped. It's bad for culture.

I agree that it'd be tough going to drop Grimes, Michie or Jones on today's showing, but the answer isn't to drop Garlett or Garland. That's going too far in the other direction I reckon.

The thing that makes it tricky is that our worst players today are all players who are clearly, far and away better players than anyone we can replace them with (special case Lumumba aside), and Salem is a better player than any of those others. Notwithstanding them playing good games, having one of them make way for Salem makes our side better; swapping him for Garlett et al doesn't make the side better overall.

I agree that all of what I've said needs to be weighed against the message dropping players who were okay sends. This is putting forth a strong case for "no change", to be honest.

[stuie 7,374]

I agree that it'd be tough going to drop Grimes, Michie or Jones on today's showing, but the answer isn't to drop Garlett or Garland. That's going too far in the other direction I reckon.

The thing that makes it tricky is that our worst players today are all players who are clearly, far and away better players than anyone we can replace them with (special case Lumumba aside), and Salem is a better player than any of those others. Notwithstanding them playing good games, having one of them make way for Salem makes our side better; swapping him for Garlett et al doesn't make the side better overall.

I agree that all of what I've said needs to be weighed against the message dropping players who were okay sends. This is putting forth a strong case for "no change", to be honest.

For the record, I was using dropping Garlett as a bit of an example rather than honestly suggesting he'll be dropped. In saying that though, sometimes dropping a guy who has been inconsistent like Jeffy for the last month may make him a better player in the long run.

The other thing is, it will get harder for us to lure players by saying "you'll get more opportunity" (which at the moment is our biggest drawcard) if we're showing a reluctance to actually back that up. It's a real balancing act, and I don't know the actual answer, but I know our culture has been non-existent and we're rebuilding it so this kind of issue is huge for us as a club.

[dieter 3,325]

God, it's so frigging boring reading the same juvenile point scoring between the couch potatoes who seem to have nothing better to do than reply and re-reply to the same old crap they keep churning out day after day after day. Most of whom I vouch have never played a game of ozzie rules in their lives. If they had they wouldn't be making the same boring ex cathedra judgement they make so regularly.

[titan_uranus 22,351]

Dunn is hopeless.

No speed.

No Strength.

Got beaten by Cloke then that red headed [censored] from North.

Ten minutes of shyte.

Game over.

I acknowledge this is also the midfielders who lost it.

This was exactly the replay of Collingwood game(first time)

Players come out unprepared then waste 20,000 peoples' time.

Dunn's first quarter was horrid, but to his credit his next three were great.

Something I noticed creep back into his game was his attack on the ball - might have been the first time this year he attacked it hard and provided drive out of the backline.

Disappointing year, disappointing first quarter, but great quarters 2-4 I thought.

Every week here the majority of posters just want to drop the same people no matter how they played. I thought we were past the stage of playing the guys who had talent over the guys who were deserving? You can't say drop Grimes/Michie/Jones when they all had better games than the guys who I mentioned and you said won't be dropped. It's bad for culture.

Great post, agree with a lot of it.

The point I'm arguing against is dropping guys just because they're the guys we "usually" drop. How would that have gone for Jetta? Dunn? McDonald? When they all had poor seasons at stages.

Grimes, Michie, and Matt Jones were all decent today, and there were a fair few players worse than them. Why would a team trying to build a competitive culture drop the guys who are performing and keep in the ones who aren't?

Think we need to decide if we're:

- Playing a core 22 to build synergy

- Playing guys who deserve a shot through form

- Have a list that is nowehere near good enough

Could be a mix of all 3, but I don't think we have anywhere near enough quality to just stick it out with a core 22 yet.

I don't disagree with your argument, but I don't buy that Michie wasn't our worst player (or equal with Garlett).

Lumumba's been poor for a while, I wouldn't be against dropping him, though I'm confident it won't happen. I'm also not sold on Garland as a long-term key to the side, like many on here are. However, I think he'll be a useful match up on some of the Dogs' forwards next week.

Michie, unfortunately, is a vanilla midfielder who is easily replaceable, and over whom I would pick VDB every day of the week. Salem is another possible in, and that puts pressure on M Jones and Grimes who are flankers/runners, like Salem.

As you've identified though, there is a key balancing act that we've struggled with at selection this year - between keeping the core players playing together to develop the cohesion we sorely lack, and building a culture which doesn't tolerate mediocrity and rewards good form.

[chook fowler 18,226]

God, it's so frigging boring reading the same juvenile point scoring between the couch potatoes who seem to have nothing better to do than reply and re-reply to the same old crap they keep churning out day after day after day. Most of whom I vouch have never played a game of ozzie rules in their lives. If they had they wouldn't be making the same boring ex cathedra judgement they make so regularly.

Spoil sport.

[stuie 7,374]

God, it's so frigging boring reading the same juvenile point scoring between the couch potatoes who seem to have nothing better to do than reply and re-reply to the same old crap they keep churning out day after day after day. Most of whom I vouch have never played a game of ozzie rules in their lives. If they had they wouldn't be making the same boring ex cathedra judgement they make so regularly.

So logoff and watch tele. Bye.

[spirit of norm smith 12,904]

In. Vandenburg

Out. Michie

[What 18,810]

Vandenberg and Salem in

[stuie 7,374]

Is Salem even ready? Bringing in an underdone player against a team like the Dogs is a dangerous move at best.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,384]

In. Vandenburg

Out. Michie

VB and if fit, Salem as well.

I thought Michie was better than last week, wouldn't mind if he got another game.

[dieter 3,325]

This is like trying to watch a show called Valley of the brain dead.

[stuie 7,374]

God, it's so frigging boring reading the same juvenile point scoring

This is like trying to watch a show called Valley of the brain dead.

Lolz. #trolllyf

[Adzman 2,085]

Fair bit of hate for Dunny on here. Probably been our most consistent backman over the past few years. Sure he has his ups and downs, but considering how many inside 50s our opposition gets each week you have to tip your hat to him.

Lumumba was poor today, but stays in. Matt Jones might be light on talent but he did more than enough to hold his spot. Harmes probably makes way for Vanders if he is fit.

[Coup Cooper 610]

Out michie/m jones

In Salem

We have missed his class all season

Best kick in the team

Didn't think either Michie or M Jones were bad today.. Unless someone ripped it up in the VFL, I'd be surprised tl see any changes?

If dawes kicked even straighter and Garlett could take a chest mark.. Would of really made things interesting kn the 3rd. If Salem has done enough.. Maybe?

[bandicoot 1,395]

Didn't think either Michie or M Jones were bad today.. Unless someone ripped it up in the VFL, I'd be surprised tl see any changes?

If dawes kicked even straighter and Garlett could take a chest mark.. Would of really made things interesting kn the 3rd. If Salem has done enough.. Maybe?

Both Michie and m jones are not the future of the club. I doubt michie will get a contract next year and jones will play out his career at Casey.

Vandenberg, Salem, toumpas and fitz are all preferable over these 2.

[DeeSpencer 23,126]

Brayshaw rested. Lumumba dropped.

Salem and Vanders in if fit. If not then no change is fine as well.

Lumumba is a all over the shop at the moment. Doesn't want the ball. Doesn't find the ball. Really offers little.

Brayshaw has played nearly ever game coming off a short preseason. His performance is declining despite his effort being great every week. Freshen him up this week and we'll likely get 3 really good weeks from him to finish the year.

Michie played a much better game than he has (barring the Richmond effort in the wet) all year. He's slow. He doesn't cover much ground and he can butcher the footy at times. But he also has a crack at contested footy and did a few good things. I'd rather give him one more week and at least then we can say we didn't die wondering.

[Henrietta Lumbago 331]

Out - Harmes, ANB

In - Vandenberg, Toumpas

I like Harmes, but he really doesn't get enough of it yet.

[Tough Kent 2,049]

Out - Harmes, ANB

In - Vandenberg, Toumpas

I like Harmes, but he really doesn't get enough of it yet.

Bringing in Toump after his 6 possession performance against Box Hill yesterday???

Michie will be further exposed against the WB at Etihad. He is so slow and doesn't have any hurt factor. I watched Higgins start behind him at contests yesterday and comfortably get past him and run away from him with ease. He is not an AFL footballer.

[What 18,810]

Salem had 23 touches for Casey, Toump had 6 so forget him

In - Salem, VanDemon

Out - Harmes, M Jones

[What 18,810]

Out - Harmes, ANB

In - Vandenberg, Toumpas

I like Harmes, but he really doesn't get enough of it yet.

Why drop ANB when he made an impact as sub? A courageous mark and a great goal. The kids too good to be at Casey