5 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

That's what tempers my excitement too - add to your group Jurrah, Watts, McKenzie and Frawley.. we certainly looked like we had the cattle about 5 years ago... we certainly didn't though

But this time.. We have a stable board & a set coaching staff with a long term plan.

Im hoping we are the Hawthorn of 07/06 atm in 15/16!!

Mods - any chance of a major cull / edit and transferring a huge chunk of this derailed threat to a "Jones v Cotchin" new thread?

10 hours ago, Tessaract said:

I think he might be special..

Powder!!!   OMG!!!!   Dank isn't anywhere nearby is he?

13 hours ago, Forest Demon said:

An improved version of Mark Ricciuto? Nice to see someone with some realistic expectations on the young kid.

I read somewhere that Simon Goodwin compared Christian Petracca's attitude to training with that of Ricciuto and since we can't have two of them, I'll go with the Oliver/Dangerfield comparison but without raising any expectations of course ?

On 24 January 2016 at 7:29 AM, The Song Formerly Known As said:

sooo... Clayton anyone?

On 30/10/2015 at 10:41 AM, Jesus Hoganshaw said:

Anyone?

 

Doppelganger.

On 23/01/2016 at 11:28 AM, dazzledavey36 said:

Anyways lets get back to Clayton Oliver who i am genuinely excited to see play this year. Will be very interesting to see if Roosy does a 'Brayshaw' with him see how he goes at VFL level first. Going by the training reports seem to be really impressing so far!

Interesting though that Brayshaw started as sub against Gold Coast in round 1 - Oliver won't have that luxury. I hated the sub rule but it did give rookies a chance to become accustomed to the pace of senior footy without having to run out a full game.

18 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Interesting though that Brayshaw started as sub against Gold Coast in round 1 - Oliver won't have that luxury. I hated the sub rule but it did give rookies a chance to become accustomed to the pace of senior footy without having to run out a full game.

Nar I think you'll find Toumpas was the sub in round 1 vs GC.

I remember he came on for Kent as the concussion sub and he was an absolute disaster area. Was temporarily subbed out after Kent was deemed ok. Then was eventually re-subbed in for good and was even more of a nervous wreck.

Edited January 29, 20169 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

Just now, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Nar I think you'll find Toumpas was the sub in round 1 vs GC.

I remember he came on for Kent as the concussion sub and he was an absolute disaster area. Was subbed out after Kent was deemed ok. Then was eventually re-subbed in for good was even more of a nervous wreck.

And Brayshaw was the one who was subbed off for Toumpas in the end.

On 23/01/2016 at 4:23 PM, ProDee said:

Cotchin has more talent than Jones, but he's not a star.  He has the potential to be a star, but he's disappointed over the last 3 years.  Cotchin has had one great season and I'm surprised he hasn't gone on with it.  He was brilliant in 2012 and has been disappointing ever since.

He couldn't handle a tag at under 18 level and he's yet to show he can consistently handle one at AFL level. And 9 possessions in a final when you're captain is abysmal.

That said, I'd take Cotchin over Jones without hesitation.

Cotchin has more talent than Jones but Jones has more heart. I'd take Jones.

Cotchin also misses far too many goals especially in crucial situations.

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Nar I think you'll find Toumpas was the sub in round 1 vs GC

 

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

And Brayshaw was the one who was subbed off for Toumpas in the end.

There you go, my memory fails me! 

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Cotchin also misses far too many goals especially in crucial situations.

And many of them are easy shots. Jones, in contrast, has become very good at kicking clutch goals. 

Removing the sub rule is an interesting change. Thought I'd consider it for Clayton.

The obvious change is you can't debut as either the sub or with plans to sub off. Short term that's not good. But medium term that's a good thing to not have players stuck as the sub multiple times. It also means they'll have to go back to the VFL to regather form instead of being sub for a week. Which means they have to be used to getting dropped and to working on their games.

The other change is in having the 4th bench spot. 22/4 instead of 21/4 means slightly less - 82% game plan per player. Now if your 4 deepest defenders can do 90, even 95+% TOG that means one player might be able to get away with 60-70% game time.

However with 90 rotations that probably means only 1 rest per player per quarter and so longer spells on the ground when the player and more on the ground rotations. Given Hogan, Garlett, a ruckman and possibly another tall or goal kicker will likely play forward most of the game it means even a first year player like Oliver probably has to do midfield minutes. From the training reports that probably won't be a problem, he seems to thrive in the contested stuff. But it might mean 2 or 3 minutes in the midfield spelling an experienced mid before going forward for another 5 or so minutes in each rotation on the ground. Will he have the fitness to do that and keep a high work rate?

The Nab challenge will be very interesting for how we plan to manage rotations and how our younger players can handle that.

 

14 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Removing the sub rule is an interesting change. Thought I'd consider it for Clayton.

The obvious change is you can't debut as either the sub or with plans to sub off. Short term that's not good. But medium term that's a good thing to not have players stuck as the sub multiple times. It also means they'll have to go back to the VFL to regather form instead of being sub for a week. Which means they have to be used to getting dropped and to working on their games.

The other change is in having the 4th bench spot. 22/4 instead of 21/4 means slightly less - 82% game plan per player. Now if your 4 deepest defenders can do 90, even 95+% TOG that means one player might be able to get away with 60-70% game time.

However with 90 rotations that probably means only 1 rest per player per quarter and so longer spells on the ground when the player and more on the ground rotations. Given Hogan, Garlett, a ruckman and possibly another tall or goal kicker will likely play forward most of the game it means even a first year player like Oliver probably has to do midfield minutes. From the training reports that probably won't be a problem, he seems to thrive in the contested stuff. But it might mean 2 or 3 minutes in the midfield spelling an experienced mid before going forward for another 5 or so minutes in each rotation on the ground. Will he have the fitness to do that and keep a high work rate?

The Nab challenge will be very interesting for how we plan to manage rotations and how our younger players can handle that.

 

An interesting analysis of the sub / interchange situation Dee - it is certainly going to help to have players who are fit and can stay on the ground.  IMO it should help get some stability on the ground.   

21 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

And Brayshaw was the one who was subbed off for Toumpas in the end.

OFF   SV6 MAG WHEELS WITH BRIDGESTONE POTENZA'S

ON    SPARE WAGON WHEEL FROM A LONG FORGOTTEN GHOST TRAIN

Edited January 30, 20169 yr by picket fence

On 1/29/2016 at 10:56 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Removing the sub rule is an interesting change. Thought I'd consider it for Clayton.

The obvious change is you can't debut as either the sub or with plans to sub off. Short term that's not good. But medium term that's a good thing to not have players stuck as the sub multiple times. It also means they'll have to go back to the VFL to regather form instead of being sub for a week. Which means they have to be used to getting dropped and to working on their games.

The other change is in having the 4th bench spot. 22/4 instead of 21/4 means slightly less - 82% game plan per player. Now if your 4 deepest defenders can do 90, even 95+% TOG that means one player might be able to get away with 60-70% game time.

However with 90 rotations that probably means only 1 rest per player per quarter and so longer spells on the ground when the player and more on the ground rotations. Given Hogan, Garlett, a ruckman and possibly another tall or goal kicker will likely play forward most of the game it means even a first year player like Oliver probably has to do midfield minutes. From the training reports that probably won't be a problem, he seems to thrive in the contested stuff. But it might mean 2 or 3 minutes in the midfield spelling an experienced mid before going forward for another 5 or so minutes in each rotation on the ground. Will he have the fitness to do that and keep a high work rate?

The Nab challenge will be very interesting for how we plan to manage rotations and how our younger players can handle that.

 

I believe you can make as many changes as you like at each of the quarter breaks. So it s not really 90 rotations.

Still it will be interesting to watch who has modelled the changes and adapted accordingly. Someone always jumps the gun and gets an edge on the comp. Wouldn't it be nice if it was us!

 

Edited February 1, 20169 yr by jnrmac

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I believe you can make as many changes as you like at each of the quarter breaks. So it s not really 90 rotations.

So that's an extra 12. 

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I believe you can make as many changes as you like at each of the quarter breaks. So it s not really 90 rotations.

Still it will be ingteresting to watch who has modelled the changes and adapted accordingly. Someone always jumsps the gund and gets an edge on the comp. Wouldn't it be nice if it was us!

 

If that's right ...they should drop it to 80

20 hours ago, beelzebub said:

If that's right ...they should drop it to 80

yeah, nah

changes at the qtr break are almost meaningless especially at 1/2 time

the qtr break is effectively an interchange break in itself for all players and longer than the average interchange bench time

On 30/01/2016 at 6:13 PM, RalphiusMaximus said:

So that's an extra 12. 

I think you'll find that's 9.

Unless you rotate after the game is over.

No, 4 on the bench = 12.

17 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

No, 4 on the bench = 12.

or you could argue an extra 54 (3x18) as all 18 get benched at each quarter break 

either way, i think it is meaningless 

Previously younger players or players coming back from injury might have been the sub. I could see the possibility of senior players now staying on the ground longer and younger players or players coming back from injury rotating more.

The resting ruckman in the forward pocket might make a comeback as well....

 

On 31/01/2016 at 3:10 PM, daisycutter said:

yeah, nah

changes at the qtr break are almost meaningless especially at 1/2 time

the qtr break is effectively an interchange break in itself for all players and longer than the average interchange bench time

I see it the same way. The only thing it achieves is starting 4 different players on the bench each quarter will allow a more even distribution of time on ground. Similarly you could be tactical and leave a burst player on the bench for a longer stint and then put them in the game for impact. A bit of a mini sub each quarter. 

The reality is I'd say maybe 30-50% of the time if not more of the time you'll be down to 3 on the bench by 3/4 time as well given how often injuries occur. I can think of several instances  - Kent v GC (later back on), Kent v Rich, Brayshaw v WC, Frost v Adel, Salem v Haw just off the top of my head where we made the sub before 1/2 time last year.