“We need to make sure that these things (grounds) are discussed going into games – that might be Subiaco or it might be the SCG, because it’s a small deck,” he said.

“Overall, we’re trying to play a game style that doesn’t matter where you play, but this is a different venue and we need to educate ourselves as coaches.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-04-30/venues-to-play-bigger-part-in-selection

It staggers me that Roos talked in the presser about the coaches needing to look at picking teams for certain grounds in the future. How did he not already know this? It seemed like he had caught on to Etihad last year after a massive selection failure against the Dogs and then a selection win with the smaller, quicker team v GWS. Many here talked about dropping talls during the week, yet there was Pedersen, Frost and Dunn absolutely stinking it up while the Saints used the ground to perfection running all day.

This on top of another admitted failure by the selection committee in round 2.

How are they getting it so wrong after all this time? How is it rank amateurs like us here on 'Land can get it right, but the actual paid professionals keep getting it wrong? I'm obviously not saying we know better, or we know more about footy, but it's seemingly the one area our coaching staff are still struggling in, and three years in Roos is still talking about "educating" the coaches in selection. WTF?

 

 

 

I dunno, our whole team just seemed to have under performed this round, the difference between our best and worst is insane

Just now, Rafiki said:

I dunno, our whole team just seemed to have under performed this round, the difference between our best and worst is insane

But we had guys like ANB, Stretch, M.Jones, Oliver all able to come in. Saints brought in fresh players after a 5 day break, we didn't.

Have a look at the lineup that beat GWS at Etihad last year, that's when I thought Roos had worked out Etihad, but clearly not given the team selected this week and the same "got it wrong" speech that we heard after round 2.

1 minute ago, stuie said:

But we had guys like ANB, Stretch, M.Jones, Oliver all able to come in. Saints brought in fresh players after a 5 day break, we didn't.

Have a look at the lineup that beat GWS at Etihad last year, that's when I thought Roos had worked out Etihad, but clearly not given the team selected this week and the same "got it wrong" speech that we heard after round 2.

I know it's an absolute cliche but we didn't turn up today, who would you have dropped for the players you named?

1 minute ago, Rafiki said:

I know it's an absolute cliche but we didn't turn up today, who would you have dropped for the players you named?

During the week I thought we needed to drop at least 1 tall, but maybe it should have been 2, or more?!

It's hard to say now without using hindsight (because you can't help it), but replace Dunn, Pedersen and Frost with ANB, Oliver and M.Jones and things could have possibly been different.

Before the game I think I had my changes as Pedersen or Frost, Brayshaw and Salem (when we thought he has injured) out, and Oliver, ANB and Petracca in.

We definitely didn't turn up, lacked so much leadership and effort today, it really should have been a 10+ goal loss, but that injection of run and speed might have helped.

 

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

But we had guys like ANB, Stretch, M.Jones, Oliver all able to come in. Saints brought in fresh players after a 5 day break, we didn't.

Have a look at the lineup that beat GWS at Etihad last year, that's when I thought Roos had worked out Etihad, but clearly not given the team selected this week and the same "got it wrong" speech that we heard after round 2.

That's a pretty good point. Hogan was our one big forward in that game, we even dropped Watts, we used Harmes as a target and he played really well, as did Newton and Dunn who was down there for a while. At the least we could've rested Frost who burnt out really quickly and brought Oliver back

1 minute ago, stuie said:

During the week I thought we needed to drop at least 1 tall, but maybe it should have been 2, or more?!

It's hard to say now without using hindsight (because you can't help it), but replace Dunn, Pedersen and Frost with ANB, Oliver and M.Jones and things could have possibly been different.

Before the game I think I had my changes as Pedersen or Frost, Brayshaw and Salem (when we thought he has injured) out, and Oliver, ANB and Petracca in.

We definitely didn't turn up, lacked so much leadership and effort today, it really should have been a 10+ goal loss, but that injection of run and speed might have helped.

 

With a winning team they were never going to make a lot of changes but I think a tall out for a small is the most realistic change that they could have made. I don't think any changes would have helped us win though to be honest, we were putrid.

1 minute ago, Je Roos Salem said:

That's a pretty good point. Hogan was our one big forward in that game, we even dropped Watts, we used Harmes as a target and he played really well, as did Newton and Dunn who was down there for a while. At the least we could've rested Frost who burnt out really quickly and brought Oliver back

This is a list of the talls we played when we won there:

Gawn, Hogan. (I don't really class these as talls - OMac, Tmac, Garland, Dunn)

This is a list of talls playing today:

Gawn, Hogan, Pedersen, Frost, Watts. (Plus Dunn and TMac, see above)

 

2 minutes ago, Rafiki said:

With a winning team they were never going to make a lot of changes but I think a tall out for a small is the most realistic change that they could have made. I don't think any changes would have helped us win though to be honest, we were putrid.

Saints had the same break as us and brought in 3 fresh players - Membrey (5 goals), Acres (28 touches, 2 goals) & Gresham (didn't do much).

We swapped out an underdone young player for an underdone young player.

Roos just does his presser for 20 minutes and says nothing.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but we lacked run,particularly run back into defence.

It was like a shoot out but there was no support for the back six from the mids.(Daniher era)

The talls as a block were outdone by the Saints big guns.

TMac and Dunn had shockers but Watts,Pedo and Hogan were ok.

Frost is still in and out of games but I can see why they persist with him.

I'm not sold on the small ground ,big ground theory of selection.

The Saints are better at Etihad,we are better at the G.

We were lazy in Defence.

 

 

7 hours ago, Rafiki said:

With a winning team they were never going to make a lot of changes but I think a tall out for a small is the most realistic change that they could have made. I don't think any changes would have helped us win though to be honest, we were putrid.

The interchange cap has led to greater fatigue and a drop in skill levels, particularly late in games. Someone with stats can answer this better than me, but I believe there are more weekly changes to teams this year than the last couple. It used to be a case of make no change after a win. Now, it seems that 3 or more changes per round is common. There will be injuries, but I wonder if more players are being rested to freshen them up. Player exhaustion and a short turn a round meant we needed to bring in fresh runners. ANB, Stetch, Matt Jones or Oliver would've been handy. Doesn't help that many of our talls had a down day either.

It's has sweet FA to do with selection for Etihad, the Melbourne Team have to turn up every week, not every 2nd or 3rd.  I can cop a loss, but it is the way you lose that counts.  The coaching was khrap yesterday, and our backline was terrible.

The difference between our best and worst still haunts the club.  The players must take responsibility no matter where they play.

TMac, Dunn, Lumumba are 3 examples of players who are inconsistent.  There are others, but I get frustrated with senior players who don't turn up every week

10 hours ago, stuie said:

“We need to make sure that these things (grounds) are discussed going into games – that might be Subiaco or it might be the SCG, because it’s a small deck,” he said.

“Overall, we’re trying to play a game style that doesn’t matter where you play, but this is a different venue and we need to educate ourselves as coaches.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-04-30/venues-to-play-bigger-part-in-selection

It staggers me that Roos talked in the presser about the coaches needing to look at picking teams for certain grounds in the future. How did he not already know this? It seemed like he had caught on to Etihad last year after a massive selection failure against the Dogs and then a selection win with the smaller, quicker team v GWS. Many here talked about dropping talls during the week, yet there was Pedersen, Frost and Dunn absolutely stinking it up while the Saints used the ground to perfection running all day.

This on top of another admitted failure by the selection committee in round 2.

How are they getting it so wrong after all this time? How is it rank amateurs like us here on 'Land can get it right, but the actual paid professionals keep getting it wrong? I'm obviously not saying we know better, or we know more about footy, but it's seemingly the one area our coaching staff are still struggling in, and three years in Roos is still talking about "educating" the coaches in selection. WTF?

I think there's a lot about this that is simply Roos and the FD taking the heat for our players' lack of work rate yesterday and against Essendon. He refused to drop them in it after both games. Gave them easy outs and took the heat.

I think this is partly because the coaching team try to let the players work through game day situations (making minimal moves), so they're just as responsible for poor results as the players. But also, Roos has talked about the mental fragility still present in some members of this group. I don't think there's much more in this than that. 

There's absolutely no way selectors don't take the venue into consideration.

Was attacked saying this in another thread but the reality is that no matter what Roos did, they would have lost.

They were very flat. I said it at quarter time to my girlfriend. I am worried about the 5-day turnaround, and playing a St Kilda team that is quick on a small ground we never play on. Watch the game, watch them around stoppages. We have the grunt but were shockingly beaten. 

What selections could he have made that would have made up 7 goals? 

Let's not kid ourselves. The group was flat. To be honest I don't think they played that poorly, not as bad as they did against Essendon. St Kilda made some shocking errors but wanted it more. We had good delivery going forward but we were ultimately smashed around the stoppages and run off the ground in the backline.

Garlett, Tyson, Gawn, Vince having quiet days doesn't help. They'd have all played irrespective of changes Roos could have made in hindsight. 

10 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

There's absolutely no way selectors don't take the venue into consideration.

"but this is a different venue and we need to educate ourselves as coaches."

Roos.

15 minutes ago, praha said:

Was attacked saying this in another thread but the reality is that no matter what Roos did, they would have lost.

They were very flat. I said it at quarter time to my girlfriend. I am worried about the 5-day turnaround, and playing a St Kilda team that is quick on a small ground we never play on. Watch the game, watch them around stoppages. We have the grunt but were shockingly beaten. 

What selections could he have made that would have made up 7 goals? 

Let's not kid ourselves. The group was flat. To be honest I don't think they played that poorly, not as bad as they did against Essendon. St Kilda made some shocking errors but wanted it more. We had good delivery going forward but we were ultimately smashed around the stoppages and run off the ground in the backline.

Garlett, Tyson, Gawn, Vince having quiet days doesn't help. They'd have all played irrespective of changes Roos could have made in hindsight. 

It was a 6 day turn around, the same as us. Its not an excuse. They brought in 3 fresh players. 2 of them crucified us.

18 minutes ago, stuie said:

"but this is a different venue and we need to educate ourselves as coaches."

Roos.

Come on 'stuie', you know well enough by now not to read to much into what Roos says...

25 minutes ago, stuie said:

"but this is a different venue and we need to educate ourselves as coaches."

Roos.

''Overall, we’re trying to play a game style that doesn’t matter where you play, but this is a different venue and we need to educate ourselves as coaches.''

Roos to AFLHQ

Just now, Skuit said:

'but this is a different venue and we need to educate ourselves as coaches.''

Roos to AFLHQ

 

Years ago the Swans were a side that could win anywhere,they didn't select horses for courses. Once again Paul seems to be making stupid references to why we cannot achieve winning matches. The players in the reserves may not be much different than those that are in the seniors,making changes is like shuffling deck chairs.The young players need senior experience and inconjunction with another good round of draft picks the Dees will be a finals side next year.

15 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It was a 6 day turn around, the same as us. Its not an excuse. They brought in 3 fresh players. 2 of them crucified us.

They had a 6-day turnaround. We had a 5-day turnaround after a night match. 

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

'but this . . .'

 

1 minute ago, praha said:

They had a 6-day turnaround. We had a 5-day turnaround after a night match. 

We played on the same day...

 

Should've dropped one of Pedersen or Frost, and picked Matt Jones.

But it's Matt Jones ffs, he wasn't going to win us the game.

Would Dunn for Garland have made any difference?

Otherwise what are you going to do? Drop really important and quality players like Salem and replace them with lesser players? 

Leave out Kent who's been fantastic the last two weeks? Leave out Jeff Garlett? Or don't play Petracca? 

We simply don't have enough players who can run all day and use the ball well. We're always going to be picking between robbing Peter and paying Paul.