17 minutes ago, stuie said:

Then stop posting gifs and replying to him.

Its quite obvious you take the bait pretty easy because has not botherd to reply to you at all.

Edited April 7, 20169 yr by dazzledavey36

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

I can't argue him being dropped, but your reason here is pathetic.

Lobb has 14cm on Garland, so he had every right to beat him in those contests.  Then Garland spends time on Daniher who is 10cm taller.

Get into him for other things, but he was required to play well above his height over the first two rounds, which is a tough ask for anyone.

If you're going to play a zone defense, and one of your 2 key backmen is incapable of fulfilling a role due to height, then don't pick him. Frost has the athleticism to run and jump, whilst Dunn has the strength to outbody an opponent. Garland just stands directly behind his taller opponent, and gives himself no chance to spoil.

Matt Jones to stop Jack Ziebell............Help!

 

3 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Then stop posting gifs and replying to him.

Its quite obvious you take the bait pretty easy because has not botherd to reply to you at all.

Just now, mo64 said:

If you're going to play a zone defense, and one of your 2 key backmen is incapable of fulfilling a role due to height, then don't pick him. Frost has the athleticism to run and jump, whilst Dunn has the strength to outbody an opponent. Garland just stands directly behind his taller opponent, and gives himself no chance to spoil.

Fair enough - if he doesn't have the height, then don't play them, but to get into him for it is poor.  He didn't ask to be given the task of playing on opponents who are far taller than him, Roos and the coaches decided that.  He did as much as he could within the confines of the situation.  

But I'm talking to the king of negativity, so I'll leave it there.  The bloke has been dropped so there isn't much I can do to defend him in this situation.

41 minutes ago, Peter Griffen said:

Coaches must think he's going alright.

And their track record is?

Such a disappointing thread.

13 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I can't argue him being dropped, but your reason here is pathetic.

Lobb has 14cm on Garland, so he had every right to beat him in those contests.  Then Garland spends time on Daniher who is 10cm taller.

Get into him for other things, but he was required to play well above his height over the first two rounds, which is a tough ask for anyone.

One of those other things being no possessions in the second half, when we were still in the game and another might be running to the wrong position several times. 

Just now, Redleg said:

One of those other things being no possessions in the second half, when we were still in the game and another might be running to the wrong position several times. 

That may well be the case.  Like I said, I can't argue it this time around.  I've got nowhere to go.

I just didn't like the argument re: playing on guys like Lobb and Daniher.  Tough ask when you're giving up 10-15cm on both players.

52 minutes ago, P-man said:

Your thoughts on team selection do not deserve a thread of their own.

This thread on team selection does not deserve a thought of its own!

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

That may well be the case.  Like I said, I can't argue it this time around.  I've got nowhere to go.

I just didn't like the argument re: playing on guys like Lobb and Daniher.  Tough ask when you're giving up 10-15cm on both players.

Agree with that. It is a tough ask for a for a 191 cm player to defend on a 201 cm player, who is being bombarded with ball.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

That may well be the case.  Like I said, I can't argue it this time around.  I've got nowhere to go.

I just didn't like the argument re: playing on guys like Lobb and Daniher.  Tough ask when you're giving up 10-15cm on both players.

He's of similar enough weight and has played many more games. I'd take him being out bodied or out reached but that wasn't the case. He was left standing behind offering nothing. 

Now if the argument was we need 3 talls I can accept that, but in terms of picking 2 talls you can't be excusing a guy who was completely smashed and didn't try any of the available tactics. No body use. No playing in front. Even giving a way a free by holding or pushing in the back would offer more than Garland's efforts against the big boys.

Just now, DeeSpencer said:

He's of similar enough weight and has played many more games. I'd take him being out bodied or out reached but that wasn't the case. He was left standing behind offering nothing. 

Now if the argument was we need 3 talls I can accept that, but in terms of picking 2 talls you can't be excusing a guy who was completely smashed and didn't try any of the available tactics. No body use. No playing in front. Even giving a way a free by holding or pushing in the back would offer more than Garland's efforts against the big boys.

I need to leave this thread, but I can recall at least 3 times he played in front of Daniher on the weekend.  Didn't work, I'll give you that, but he certainly did things differently.

I'll be interested to see how Dunn, McDonald and whoever else (Frost?  Pedersen?) covers the North talls this weekend if they get the same easy ball that Daniher got in the weekend.  Hopefully they do better.

6 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

He's of similar enough weight and has played many more games. I'd take him being out bodied or out reached but that wasn't the case. He was left standing behind offering nothing. 

Now if the argument was we need 3 talls I can accept that, but in terms of picking 2 talls you can't be excusing a guy who was completely smashed and didn't try any of the available tactics. No body use. No playing in front. Even giving a way a free by holding or pushing in the back would offer more than Garland's efforts against the big boys.

That's not exactly right. On several occasions Garland was in front of Daniher, holding his position, but Daniher simply put his hands up higher and marked over the top of him. It was a poor match up.

But not as bad as the Bugg and Jetta match ups on him, which occurred several times. That was pathetic structure.

Edited April 7, 20169 yr by Redleg

FB: Lumumba  Dunn  Jetta
HB: Wagner   McDonald  Salem
C:  Stretch    Jones   M Jones
HF: Vanders  Hogan  Kennedy
FF: Watts   Frost   Garlett
Foll: Gawn  Vince   Viney
Int: Tyson   Bugg  Harmes  Kent

That's the side I'd go with.

I wouldn't put Frost down back unless the Ben Brown match up gets right on top. I'd try and use Lumumba and Wagner on the tall forward most up the ground, and Dunn and McDonald on the other 2. Bugg to Harvey. Jetta to Thomas. 

If we win some footy out of the midfield we are in with a chance. If we get smashed at the contested ball and can't get any run going like last week it could get ugly.

10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That's not exactly right. On several occasions Garland was in front of Daniher, holding his position, but Daniher simply put his hands up higher and marked over the top of him. It was a poor match up.

But not as bad as the Bugg and Jetta match ups on him, which occurred several times. That was pathetic structure.

I remember one when he went to mark from infront and juggled it and Daniher plucked it. Otherwise too often he didn't body him at all. Even from the front you have to do some body work. Plus all our talls seem to have forgotten how to jump at contests. 

Part of it's structure, but I feel mostly it's lack of smarts. There's often time to switch the match ups if you identify the problems and the other player knows who to cover. For whatever reason our defenders get caught ball watching and don't swap. 

I did say that Kent wouldn't get dropped. He's got pace. He doesn't use it, but good on him.

Glad to see Frost in again. Almost a certainty to line up at full back.

I don't mind the ANB non-selection. Make him really hungry. Back it up and he'll be in the team next week. We've gotta keep the bar high for these young guys. Who does he come in for anyway? Harmes maybe? Not sure he has the same leg speed to play the press as Harmes does. That said, I'm not Harmes' biggest fan either. Hoping he can clunk a few this week and get some confidence.

I like the Garland omission. IMO he seems to have been named in the leadership group to give him a bit of aspiration. It hasn't worked. If Frost and Dunn defend well enough and offer some rebound, Col won't get back in.

I like the Stretch inclusion. Be interested to see how he goes against the bigger bodies. His zip certainly adds something to the team if he can get it enough. I wonder if he'll play at half back or simply on the wing?

Little confused on Gus. So they played him underdone last week. But he's played now, so he's got some miles in the legs. Why drop him? I guess they might want him to dominate the VFL before getting a game again. Competition for places and all.

2 hours ago, P-man said:

What has Harmes, a player the same age as Neal-Bullen, done in the first two weeks to hold his spot?

He's a slightly different type of player, but I certainly agree with your sentiment, mate.

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Both are named in the starting 18, so they are guaranteed not to be dropped.  Other changes will come from the interchange bench, where Oliver and Pedersen have been named as well.

I can see Pedo going out against his former club. It means Frost probably has to provide Max with a chop out, but it also declutters Hogan's forwardline a bit. 

2 hours ago, Dee-Nee said:

Garland is no star, but what chance did he have against Daniher last week? He must have had a 2 foot reach advantage on Col. Roos didn't have a plan B and so its Garlands fault Daniher dominated. Frost out, Frost in. Confidence is starting to wain.

That's not why Garland was dropped, although I'm sure it didn't help. He offers nothing going the other way. At least Tommy and Dunn do. It'll be interesting to see how Frost goes (if he plays). 

ANB had a series of injuries and injury concerns over the pre-season, to the extent that he hardly had a pre-season. He didn't play NAB for a reason. One game, even a decent one, at Casey is not enough. Brayshaw had a decent game at Casey the week before he was rushed back, and look how that turned out

1 hour ago, Soidee said:

Sadly Garland although in leadership group continues to disappoint on game day. He has hardly been starved of opportunities !

Our group has mindset issues, and lacks leadership when it counts.  Tommy Mac needs to play a blinder or he will find himself in the same situation. As for Kent, he also needs to find the pill more often.

I hate games against norf, Harvey always rains on our parade and rubs it in our noses.  Hope coaches have the nouse to do something about him this week.

At the very least, he needs to get involved in the play more. If I was one of the coaches, I'd be saying keep it simple, aim for a target of tackles each week. I'm talking between 5-8 tackles. Do that and you earn your spot next week. If you can cap it off with a goal (or two), brilliant. That's all I'd be saying to Kent. If he does those basics right and his work rate is up, he'll find himself getting involved in the play more and hitting the scoreboard more. 

Having said all that, I'm just not convinced he'll make it. My cousin has me on video at our family Xmas do saying as much. I hope he does make it and the video can be thrown back in my face, but I'm pretty confident I've got this one right. 

1 hour ago, DeeZee said:

Guys like Kent and Harmes were probably kept in because their form has been pretty good over the past four weeks.

They were probably given another chance as well as a few of others, to prove it was just a bad day.

Brayshaw didn't seem quite ready and Garlands form has been pretty ordinary.

I reckon Pederson could also be out but can't pick the fourth at this stage, but I'm guessing it will be one of the inclusions on the bench like Grimes as Stretch offers much needed pace.

Seriously? When? They've pretty much done bugger all.

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Fair enough - if he doesn't have the height, then don't play them, but to get into him for it is poor.  He didn't ask to be given the task of playing on opponents who are far taller than him, Roos and the coaches decided that.  He did as much as he could within the confines of the situation.  

But I'm talking to the king of negativity, so I'll leave it there.  The bloke has been dropped so there isn't much I can do to defend him in this situation.

Hang on, mate. So you're saying because Col hasn't chosen who he's played on, it wasn't his fault that his opponents beat him? You're either good enough or you're not. Maybe Col doesn't read the play well enough? Maybe he's not tall enough to be a KPD and if so, what exactly is he offering? Because it's certainly not rebound.

Look, don't get me wrong. Col seems like a great bloke. The time I spoke to him he seemed like a really down to earth, 'real' person. If there was a bloke on our list who I wished would be a part of our future it'd be Col, but he's played nine seasons now and maybe that's the end of the road?

2 hours ago, P-man said:

Grimes performed well for 3 or 4 consecutive weeks? 

Frost was omitted and comes straight back in the following week. Based on...what?

I get the theory of earning a spot but it has be applied consistently and when a team performs as unbelievably poorly as it did o the weekend, with so many putting in pitiful efforts, I would've hoped to see a talented player who had a blinder get recognised.

But spilt milk. I can't see the team named getting anywhere near them. Will hope for a miracle.

one of our weaknesses at this stage is our lack of maturity & Leaders.  To bring in ANB & Wagner adds to this weakness.   Especially when we aren't in strong form.

So I think ANB will get a go very soon,   & I also think Oliver will fight his way back in about 2 matches time.

Talls will get rushed in at times for balance.  except the Rnd 1,  where he was rushed out for Rnd2

 

I think Trenners looks the key to us at the moment,  his leadership maturity & knowledge,  & I don't want him rushed...  hmmn.   We just have too high a ratio of inexperience atmo.

3 hours ago, stuie said:

 

 

Demonland won't let me not quote Stuie . . . Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Col return as early as next week to have a run with ol' mate Jeremy. 

Just now, AdamFarr said:

Hang on, mate. So you're saying because Col hasn't chosen who he's played on, it wasn't his fault that his opponents beat him? You're either good enough or you're not. Maybe Col doesn't read the play well enough? Maybe he's not tall enough to be a KPD and if so, what exactly is he offering? Because it's certainly not rebound.

Look, don't get me wrong. Col seems like a great bloke. The time I spoke to him he seemed like a really down to earth, 'real' person. If there was a bloke on our list who I wished would be a part of our future it'd be Col, but he's played nine seasons now and maybe that's the end of the road?

Not saying that all.  Just saying it's a tough gig when you're playing on blokes who have 10-15cm on you.  I didn't realise it was that hard to understand.

3 hours ago, P-man said:

Was prepared for the disappointment of ANB not being named. Why would a rubbish team need a player who had 36 possessions and kicked 2 goals? We have James Harmes.

Garland gets made part of the leadership group. Dropped by Round 3.

It's verging on a comedy act, really.

And Garland is from Tassie as well. Would no doubt be disappointed that he doesn't get to play in front of family and friends...it's a strong message.

 

We have trouble covering really tall opposition forwards we don't have a player to cover them. Brown stitched us up last time, Cloak tends to have his better days against us. Daniher has become almost a legend at bomberland from his game against us, etc..  We need a backman who can play on a real tall. While Dunn does try he is still out marked to regularly, luckily he does a lot of body work to try to keep his player out of the game.