Selection Failures

[beelzebub 23,390]

or 2 talls,  3 smalls and a bloke who's medium but is BIG

[rjay 25,347]

1 hour ago, Akum said:

When Frost plays for Casey, they play him in defence - right where we need a tall defender in the firsts. Either this means they've abandoned the "Frost-as-a-forward" experiment (which they should!), or they still want him to play as a forward, in which case they're doing him no favours by not letting him play there for Casey.

What I don't understand is that they're happy to play one tall short in defence, but keep three talls in the forward line, as well as Gawn drifting down there. Surely it would be better if we don't have enough talls that we play a shorter forward line, rather than a shorter defence.

Perhaps it's time to leave the forward line to Watts & Hogan & four "smalls", rather than play a third tall forward and leave us too short in defence.

 

With Dawes back now along with Weideman & Hullett, I think for development reasons Frost has to play back at Casey. I also think it's the only place he can realistically play anyway, he's not a forward and he's not a ruck.

...and for those pushing for Dawes as a defender have a good think about it. It's not going to happen and if it does I can hear the Roos "we got it wrong" press conference now. Dawes is too slow, tries hard but couldn't catch a cold, the only tackles he lays are when someone is silly enough to run into his grasp.

By the way if we played Watts, Hogan & 4 smalls who is going to give Max a break?

It just won't work with a defender taking part time ruck duties. I've noticed some run the scenario of our defensive ruck coming in when they make the change following his forward into the middle but this puts too much power into the opposition coaching box, they will run Max into the ground. We need to control when Max takes the break and control the ruck movement as it is a strength we don't want to give away.

Currently we give Max a break for part of a Q and to do this we need someone to take over from our forward half. It's been Pedders and he was back to his lazy best on the weekend, if Dawes comes in he will have to take the relief ruck role or forget about playing senior football.

We can only use Gawn/Spencer combination sparingly at best. Neither is a forward. Yes it worked once at Geelong, I mean even Newton worked once or twice and Silvia had the odd good game. It doesn't mean it will work again, the odds are against it.

[Moonshadow 17,678]

Thought I read on a Casey thread Frost has been played in the back half at Casey only recently. Previously he's played forward there? Not sure on that though. 

Backline appears the best spot for him, particularly as Weid comes on over the next year or two. Frost has great speed for his size and attacks the ball, some of his run downs have been excellent. From what I have seen of him at NAB cup and H&A games this year his marking is ok but not a strength. And he is a poor second ruck. My main concerns are kicking, decision making and that he 'goes missing' very easily during games. If I see another KPD at Melbourne kick to a 1:3 contest or turn it over by foot I fear for the wellbeing of those sitting around me at the game.

At the moment, given he has been played as a forward at Melbourne, I'm struggling to see why we recruited him. Did we get the wrong sibling?

[stuie 7,374]

Sam Frost: Frosty played a different position this week. He was another one who came back from the AFL. Sam was one of our key defenders and part of our back six. It’s not new to him that position, but in the past two years, he’s played ruck/forward. It took him a while to adjust, but he showed some positive signs and used his speed a few times to come forward and really impact contests. His ball movement also linked up well several times. Sam’s a work in progress, but I thought his attitude was great. 

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-05-11/vfl-player-review-round-five

 

[Farmer 902]

On 16 May 2016 at 11:53 AM, Moonshadow said:

Missing the point stu. We had no other in form or fit tall back to play. Roos said he wants to play guys who are right to go rather than in despiration. 

Truly, it was a monumental blunder. At a dinner at the G on Friday night sponsored by past players but attended by 400 fans I kept asking the question" who is going to play on Redpath, Roughead/Campbell and Stringer?" No-one had a clue. The first person to go to Strunger was Wagner playing game 4. Soon, we had Bugg flying with Redpath, and ultimately Jetta was on him when he marked in the last quarter. Jetta! For heavens' sake!

the Zone is fine but it seems to mean that no-one is given a specific job, a job they can work on watching tapes all week. I think Garland should have been given Stringer and told to play him close. Dunn should have been picked specifically for Redpath . Dunn's strength would have been a factor. Then Tom McD could have picked up the resting ruckman and become a more important rebounding force. He played well anyway.You simply can't gave a backline including Jetta, Bugg/Michie, Wagner , Hunt and Salem

 

 

 

[Adam The God 30,644]

On 5/16/2016 at 2:51 PM, Akum said:

On the one hand, the result is disappointing.

On the other hand, to be so comprehensively outplayed & have so many problems all over the ground through the whole match and only go down by 5 goals to a possibly top 4 side means that it's not a total disaster. At the very least, it's 11 goals better than being comprehensively outplayed by the same team last year.

We've said in a few of our losses that the "final score flattered us". Against Essendon scores were level with 6 minutes to play, despite them being by far the better team the whole match. Against Saints we played as badly as we possibly could, got a third less disposals than them and our defence went MIA & we lost by 6 goals, not 16 as it should have been.

On each occasion we were severely unbalanced by selection failures - went in too tall against Dons, too short against Saints & Dogs - and got punished for it.

But even last year a "bad" loss was 10-15 goals. This year a "bad" loss is 5-7 goals.

That says something - I'm not sure what, but it says something.

It says we're getting there and that this group persists until the very end.

[stuie 7,374]

Selection failures: The back 6 named this week.

If we don't absolutely dominate the clearances we could lose this.

Farcical.

 

[Red and Blue Flame 242]

19 minutes ago, stuie said:

Selection failures: The back 6 named this week.

If we don't absolutely dominate the clearances we could lose this.

Farcical.

 

Salem dropped? another stuff up. Garland and T-Mac should be out before him.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Selection failures: The back 6 named this week.

If we don't absolutely dominate the clearances we could lose this.

Farcical.

 

Hardly profound old drinking buddy. Dominating the clearances (or not ) goes a fair way to winning or losing any week.

[stuie 7,374]

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Hardly profound old drinking buddy. Dominating the clearances (or not ) goes a fair way to winning or losing any week.

Maybe I made it too simple or not simple enough for you big fella.... I think our back half structure is weak for this game, and just like the Dogs game and Saints game, if our midfield doesn't absolutely dominate and win first use we are looking very susceptible in that part of the ground.

 

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Maybe I made it too simple or not simple enough for you big fella.... I think our back half structure is weak for this game, and just like the Dogs game and Saints game, if our midfield doesn't absolutely dominate and win first use we are looking very susceptible in that part of the ground.

 

We'll discuss it in the corporate box on Sunday old mate.

[Moonshadow 17,678]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Maybe I made it too simple or not simple enough for you big fella.... I think our back half structure is weak for this game, and just like the Dogs game and Saints game, if our midfield doesn't absolutely dominate and win first use we are looking very susceptible in that part of the ground.

 

Truly groundbreaking thought. 

Would never have considered that. 

[What 18,810]

After last weeks match Roos said there would be around 4 changes for this week going to Alice Springs.  It was also obvious to anyone with a brain our that some of our kids are tired and on top of that the flu has affected multiple players.

So why in gods name did we only make two changes?

[CHF 2,817]

We have developing players..... We have good development coaches..... Been playing some good footy but we have made some complete rubbish selection mistakes. 

[olisik 4,060]

Not having Frost or Pedo to come in and play on Westhoff was a mistake.

[What 18,810]

Roos: I've got to take responsibility for not making more changes for this week. We spoke about it at match committee

 

Then why the fark didnt you do it!!!!!!!!

[titan_uranus 25,211]

We should have played a second ruck/third tall forward (Pedersen/Dawes), we should have rotated more running players, we should have dropped Harmes, we possibly shouldn't have picked Tyson and we possibly should have withdrawn Kennedy if he indeed hurt himself in the warm-up.

Not good, FD, not good.

[leave it to deever 17,598]

23 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Roos: I've got to take responsibility for not making more changes for this week. We spoke about it at match committee

 

Then why the fark didnt you do it!!!!!!!!

Well hes owned up to it this time

[Blue-and-red 91]

Tyson is too slow to play in Alice springs, a fast ground against a fast opponent. Harms is another who needs a spell in the twos

[stuie 7,374]

"I've got to take responsibility, we said we were going to do that after last week and we didn't do it," Roos said.

"That's really poor by me and with a six-day break we had an opportunity to do that and we didn't take the opportunity. Certainly we've got to do a better job at picking the team on a weekly basis.

"It's something I mentioned last week and something we spoke about at match committee we didn't do, so we've got to take responsibility as much as the players."

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-05-28/lack-of-experienced-players-costs-us-roos

FFS.

 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

I reckon they got cold feet on it, Stuie.  Roosy said he was going to do it, then the match committee spoke about it and they all baulked at the idea and made 2 changes instead.

I'd like to think it's the last time they do this.  It's great that they want to back in the kids, but it didn't work at all this week and I reckon Roosy knew it pretty early on in the game.  

[Copuchas 763]

The lead-up to this game was like watching a slow motion car crash.  The majority on here opined that OMac wasn't up to it basis the Brisbane performance.  Many noted how Westhoff had traditionally torn us apart.   Dixon loomed as a threat.   The impact of a 6 day turnaround on the younger players 10 rounds in was flagged by others (particularly after the flat performance against the Saints following the previous 6 day turnaround.  Pederson was left out without explanation.  Tyson who'd suffered the same affliction played.  Dunn who was an obvious answer to shore up the defence for many was overlooked.  Finally, the markets (who mostly get it right btw) told us promptly what they thought, flipping the odds 48 hours out after teams were announced.

Not good enough in my view and the 3 or 4th time obvious selection errors have been made this year.  Too carried away with the performances of young, inexperienced kids (promising as they are).  Not respectful enough of hardened opposition.  Successfully managed to play Wingard and Westhoff back in to form.  Just so bloody frustrating.

Oh....and btw...for those who think that getting games in to Omac for development is more important than winning games and securing a possible finals appearance this year, please just acknowledge that until the guy has a sufficient skill level to hit a target at 25-30m consistently, he should not even be in the side.

 

[Lucifers Hero 40,563]

32 minutes ago, stuie said:

"I've got to take responsibility, we said we were going to do that after last week and we didn't do it," Roos said.

"That's really poor by me and with a six-day break we had an opportunity to do that and we didn't take the opportunity. Certainly we've got to do a better job at picking the team on a weekly basis.

"It's something I mentioned last week and something we spoke about at match committee we didn't do, so we've got to take responsibility as much as the players."

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-05-28/lack-of-experienced-players-costs-us-roos

FFS.

To me Roos saying it was really poor of him to not make selection changes is him deflecting the attention off everyone else. 

Deflecting heat from coaches:  Immediately after last week's game he had at least 3/4 changes in mind.  He allowed the selection committee to change his mind.  Its a committee and Roos is no autocrat or dictator.  He lets people learn from their experience mistakes.  The selection committee has made plenty of mistakes this year (vs Ess, vs StK) and learnt plenty.

Deflecting heat from the players:  He said a few games ago that whacking the players is not the way to go with a young team.  They want to learn and be educated.  So he isn't going to give them a serve in public.  This way he can keep their morale up, helping build belief.  I'm sure that when they do their reviews all the coaches will let them know the real score. 

And, he certainly isn't going to tell the media what goes on behind closed doors and I'm glad for this.  He is giving media plausible platitudes.  He is also ensuring that Goodwin and players have a 'bruise free' run in the media this year.  So he takes the heat himself.   

Imagine if Goodwin was in the chair and we had the bad results vs Ess, StK and Port the media would be howling with negative headlines.  Roos is doing a brilliant job of protecting his charges.  He has broad shoulders.  He can and will continue to take the heat! 

Edited May 29, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[xarronn 384]

20 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

To me Roos saying it was really poor of him to not make selection changes is him deflecting the attention off everyone else. 

Deflecting heat from coaches:  Immediately after last week's game he had at least 3/4 changes in mind.  He allowed the selection committee to change his mind.  Its a committee and Roos is no autocrat or dictator.  He lets people learn from their experience mistakes.  The selection committee has made plenty of mistakes this year (vs Ess, vs StK) and learnt plenty.

Deflecting heat from the players:  He said a few games ago that whacking the players is not the way to go with a young team.  They want to learn and be educated.  So he isn't going to give them a serve in public.  This way he can keep their morale up, helping build belief.  I'm sure that when they do their reviews all the coaches will let them know the real score. 

And, he certainly isn't going to tell the media what goes on behind closed doors and I'm glad for this.  He is giving media plausible platitudes.  He is also ensuring that Goodwin and players have a 'bruise free' run in the media this year.  So he takes the heat himself.   

Imagine if Goodwin was in the chair and we had the bad results vs Ess, StK and Port the media would be howling with negative headlines.  Roos is doing a brilliant job of protecting his charges.  He has broad shoulders.  He can and will continue to take the heat! 

 

Well said LH. I agree with every single point you have made. As for making more changes this week, after a strong though quite flawed win against Brisbane, it was surely a toss of the dice whether to make even more changes. I reckon though, the reticence to make more included Roos himself.

[monoccular 17,698]

18 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Roos: I've got to take responsibility for not making more changes for this week. We spoke about it at match committee

 

Then why the fark didnt you do it!!!!!!!!

Exactly

Almost everything about our beloved club has become so much more professional......except the selection committee.