Selection Failures

[Redleg 40,815]

8 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Should have dropped Dawes pre game and brought Michie in. Once the ball hit the ground he was non existant.  

Steve Wonder could see that having Dawes playing in those conditions was a poor poor choice.

Maybe Roos is "very superstitious" as Stevie would say.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Selection failure?  Nah.  We were just beaten by a better side today who hunted the footy more and used their bigger bodies and experience to run over the top of us.

So we drop Dawes for Michie, for example.  How do we know Michie doesn't just get 8-10 disposals and have no impact on the match?  We've given his type a run before and they haven't exactly set the world on fire.

The loss yesterday had nothing to do with selection.

[stuie 7,374]

22 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Selection failure?  Nah.  We were just beaten by a better side today who hunted the footy more and used their bigger bodies and experience to run over the top of us.

So we drop Dawes for Michie, for example.  How do we know Michie doesn't just get 8-10 disposals and have no impact on the match?  We've given his type a run before and they haven't exactly set the world on fire.

The loss yesterday had nothing to do with selection.

As I said earlier in this thread, it's not about the players we bring in but the team balance. I (and many others) thought it's a basic footy principle that in wet conditions the strengths of taller players are diminished, so to go in with such a top heavy side was a mistake. Sure it's all a bit theoretical, you don't know for sure who will play well and who won't, but you just go with the obvious call don't you? Dawes for Michie is not a great call, Dawes is one of our better big players at ground level, for mine I would have dropped Frost and OMac for Grimes/ANB and Harmes, blokes who run hard and can win the inside ball. Now those blokes are not great players, but on team balance it obviously would have helped in the areas of tackling and clearances where we were beaten badly.

No one has said we weren't beaten by a better team, you'd be silly to say that, but we clearly would have given ourselves a better chance with a team more suited to the conditions. It's just getting frustrating that even us mug supporters can see what needs to happen but the selection committee keep getting it wrong, by their own admission.

 

Edited June 19, 2016 by stuie

[jnrmac 20,053]

Grimes and ANB were the two obvious ones I would have thought. Both hard bodies, good at ground level, good footy smarts, accumulators and more well suited to playing on the Sydney mids..

[Copuchas 758]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

As I said earlier in this thread, it's not about the players we bring in but the team balance. I (and many others) thought it's a basic footy principle that in wet conditions the strengths of taller players are diminished, so to go in with such a top heavy side was a mistake. Sure it's all a bit theoretical, you don't know for sure who will play well and who won't, but you just go with the obvious call don't you? Dawes for Michie is not a great call, Dawes is one of our better big players at ground level, for mine I would have dropped Frost and OMac for Grimes/ANB and Harmes, blokes who run hard and can win the inside ball. Now those blokes are not great players, but on team balance it obviously would have helped in the areas of tackling and clearances where we were beaten badly.

No one has said we weren't beaten by a better team, you'd be silly to say that, but we clearly would have given ourselves a better chance with a team more suited to the conditions. It's just getting frustrating that even us mug supporters can see what needs to happen but the selection committee keep getting it wrong, by their own admission.

 

Concur Stuie and would add a) Grimes / ANB have been playing most of the season in slippery conditions at Casey; b) we did fall away badly in the last quarter, reflective of the 6 day break?  Surely a lesson we needed not to have to learn once more??.  There are several prerequisites for successful wet weather football:  big bodies, hardness at the contest, skills (they actually stand out more in the wet eg Watts), familiarity with playing in the wet, freshness.  Our selectors failed us again I'm afraid.  I don't think it would've changed the result but we would've been closer and the pyschological damage that goes with a loss like that would have been avoided.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, jnrmac said:

Grimes and ANB were the two obvious ones I would have thought. Both hard bodies, good at ground level, good footy smarts, accumulators and more well suited to playing on the Sydney mids..

Obvious choices, sure, but we're talking hindsight here.  Both may well have come in and been okay but not improved our performance at all.  On the flip side they might have made some difference.  We just don't know.

[stuie 7,374]

33 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Obvious choices, sure, but we're talking hindsight here.  Both may well have come in and been okay but not improved our performance at all.  On the flip side they might have made some difference.  We just don't know.

But we DO know that picking lots of talls in the wet is a bad idea.

 

[Moonshadow 17,675]

On the other flip side there's a big guy called Buddy Franklin who did pretty well for the Swans. Nankervis had a crack and the second gamer Alir looked good too.

Whether we went in too tall or should've played Grimes, Michie, ANB, Harmes, yadda yadda, it would have made almost no difference. Might've looked better balanced on paper, but those guys struggle with disposal in the dry, let alone the wet. I agree that one of OMac or Frost should not have played, but it would've been simply shuffling deck chairs. Perhaps it's better to play those two talls to give them experience of wet weather footy rather than a smaller guy struggling to get to get back in the seniors.

The thought of Grimes ball in hand near the boundary line in torrential Sydney rain gives me nightmares.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, stuie said:

But we DO know that picking lots of talls in the wet is a bad idea.

 

Didn't seem to faze the Swans much, although I get what you mean.  I just think that, this week, it wasn't a selection failure and more down to the fact that we were beaten by a better side.  At no stage was I sitting there going "I wish we had played Grimes, ANB, Harmes etc."

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

On the other flip side there's a big guy called Buddy Franklin who did pretty well for the Swans. Nankervis had a crack and the second gamer Alir looked good too.

Whether we went in too tall or should've played Grimes, Michie, ANB, Harmes, yadda yadda, it would have made almost no difference. Might've looked better balanced on paper, but those guys struggle with disposal in the dry, let alone the wet. I agree that one of OMac or Frost should not have played, but it would've been simply shuffling deck chairs. Perhaps it's better to play those two talls to give them experience of wet weather footy rather than a smaller guy struggling to get to get back in the seniors.

The thought of Grimes ball in hand near the boundary line in torrential Sydney rain gives me nightmares.

Yeah you're right, we should have just said "well, we'll lose anyway, who cares who we pick...", that's a much better approach than using logic.

 

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, Wiseblood said:

Didn't seem to faze the Swans much, although I get what you mean.  I just think that, this week, it wasn't a selection failure and more down to the fact that we were beaten by a better side.  At no stage was I sitting there going "I wish we had played Grimes, ANB, Harmes etc."

Yeah look, I'm not saying we lost purely due to team selection, but it's a footy basic to not pick heaps of talls in the wet I would have thought?

 

[Moonshadow 17,675]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Yeah you're right, we should have just said "well, we'll lose anyway, who cares who we pick...", that's a much better approach than using logic.

 

Trolling again? Not what I said at all. Put me on ignore Stu as your pathetic sarcasm is tiresome.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah look, I'm not saying we lost purely due to team selection, but it's a footy basic to not pick heaps of talls in the wet I would have thought?

 

I think we played the right number of talls, the only one that i thought really struggled was Maxy and he has to be picked for obvious reasons. We matched up ok with them across the ground height wise we needed the talls at each end to make a contest, they did that at times, would have liked them to play 1 on 1 in the forwardline though to make that easier. Thats a gameplan problem more than a selection one. 

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, Copuchas said:

Concur Stuie and would add a) Grimes / ANB have been playing most of the season in slippery conditions at Casey; b) we did fall away badly in the last quarter, reflective of the 6 day break?  Surely a lesson we needed not to have to learn once more??.  There are several prerequisites for successful wet weather football:  big bodies, hardness at the contest, skills (they actually stand out more in the wet eg Watts), familiarity with playing in the wet, freshness.  Our selectors failed us again I'm afraid.  I don't think it would've changed the result but we would've been closer and the pyschological damage that goes with a loss like that would have been avoided.

I thought the best we could have hoped for in the circumstances were a close loss and to have given a really good account of ourselves. The problem is, the selection mistakes (which are mistakes we've made in the recent past but haven't learned from) made it impossible for us to give a really good account of ourselves.

If you lose to a top side in very trying conditions but perform well, it gives you a bit of hope. But we missed out on any chance of that because of the selection.

Six-day break against a top side, I reckon should in future be 3 changes. In the wet & mud, against a top team, those three need experience and size to replace youth and not-fully-developed (or not-fully-fit-but-"managing"-an injury*) bodies. The analogy about winning a test match in Perth with a four-pronged pace attack, then expecting that because they performed well they could do the same on a slow turner, is right on the mark.

Another thing - players know who loves playing in the wet & who hates it. This is the Swans FCS - anyone who doesn't like the wet is going to get smashed against the Swans.

And this isn't being wise in hindsight - it was obvious to most of us that there was a huge risk of running out of legs on the last quarter.

[* We have 4 I can think of who are "managing" or carrying an injury - Vandenberg, Viney, Dawes & Trengove. In the wet against the Swans, that's probably one or two too many.]

Yes, Grimes for O-Mac might not have made much of a difference. But Grimes, Garland & ANB/Michie for O-Mac, Stretch and Vandenberg, while it wouldn't have bridged the 55-point gap, would have given us more of a chance.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Akum

[SPC 3,532]

Selection has been strange all year.. I think there is more too it than we understand. Roosy is an incredibly smart bloke and not one who would make the same mistakes week in week out..

My feeling is that he wants to keep the core group together playing, even if they are tired and coming off a short break, or up against bigger bodies.. It is like he is using the last few months of his coaching role to test the players mentally and physically, because Goody will not be afforded this luxury when he is in charge.

Roos has spoken about 6 days breaks and fatigue, yet he has not addressed it. We clearly had 1-2 many talls and either Frost or Omac should not have played, but they were included.. Grimes was certainly the obvious replacement, but no change..  just doesn't add up. 

[jnrmac 20,053]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Obvious choices, sure, but we're talking hindsight here.  Both may well have come in and been okay but not improved our performance at all.  On the flip side they might have made some difference.  We just don't know.

It's not hindsight WB. Many here including me were calling for changes. Roos himself said they made a mistake going in unchanged after a 6 day break last time. The forecast rain was 30-50mm - it was never going to be dry weather football. And they were fresh.

IMO it would have made a difference - not enough to win but a stupid selection decision in any case.

 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

4 hours ago, SPC said:

Selection has been strange all year.. I think there is more too it than we understand. Roosy is an incredibly smart bloke and not one who would make the same mistakes week in week out..

My feeling is that he wants to keep the core group together playing, even if they are tired and coming off a short break, or up against bigger bodies.. It is like he is using the last few months of his coaching role to test the players mentally and physically, because Goody will not be afforded this luxury when he is in charge.

Roos has spoken about 6 days breaks and fatigue, yet he has not addressed it. We clearly had 1-2 many talls and either Frost or Omac should not have played, but they were included.. Grimes was certainly the obvious replacement, but no change..  just doesn't add up. 

I cant understand this thought. Many here seem to share it but i thought that Sydney's talls were all dangerous if we had matched up with smalls we would have been pushed aside even more than we were already.

[SPC 3,532]

6 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I cant understand this thought. Many here seem to share it but i thought that Sydney's talls were all dangerous if we had matched up with smalls we would have been pushed aside even more than we were already.

They had a much smaller forward line than we had backline. I just thought given the forecast we could have taken an advantage from having stronger bodies with low center of gravity to handle the conditions. 

[beelzebub 23,313]

4 minutes ago, SPC said:

They had a much smaller forward line than we had backline. I just thought given the forecast we could have taken an advantage from having stronger bodies with low center of gravity to handle the conditions. 

makes perfect sense to me

[bing181 9,193]

5 hours ago, Akum said:

... Grimes, Garland & ANB/Michie for O-Mac, Stretch and Vandenberg, while it wouldn't have bridged the 55-point gap, would have given us more of a chance.

Or not.

[H_T 3,043]

5 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

On the other flip side there's a big guy called Buddy Franklin who did pretty well for the Swans. Nankervis had a crack and the second gamer Alir looked good too.

Whether we went in too tall or should've played Grimes, Michie, ANB, Harmes, yadda yadda, it would have made almost no difference. Might've looked better balanced on paper, but those guys struggle with disposal in the dry, let alone the wet. I agree that one of OMac or Frost should not have played, but it would've been simply shuffling deck chairs. Perhaps it's better to play those two talls to give them experience of wet weather footy rather than a smaller guy struggling to get to get back in the seniors.

The thought of Grimes ball in hand near the boundary line in torrential Sydney rain gives me nightmares.

Good post. And McVeigh was just a class above handling the ball in those conditions - put on a real clinic. And was instrumental in a number pieces of play for the Swans in gaining the ascendancy throughout.

Both Nankervis and Alir looked quite at home in the wet. #Swans

5 hours ago, stuie said:

Yeah you're right, we should have just said "well, we'll lose anyway, who cares who we pick...", that's a much better approach than using logic.

 

Try reading his post before responding with this garbage.

[stuie 7,374]

5 hours ago, stuie said:

Yeah you're right, we should have just said "well, we'll lose anyway, who cares who we pick...", that's a much better approach than using logic.

 

2 minutes ago, H_T said:

Try reading his post before responding with this garbage.

 

5 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Whether we went in too tall or should've played Grimes, Michie, ANB, Harmes, yadda yadda, it would have made almost no difference. Might've looked better balanced on paper, but those guys struggle with disposal in the dry, let alone the wet. I agree that one of OMac or Frost should not have played, but it would've been simply shuffling deck chairs.

 

[poita 3,889]

I've been critical of selection this year, but we lost on Sunday (a) because the Swans outplayed us in every respect and (b) we played dumb football given the conditions.

Probably the number one reason we lost was Jarrod McVeigh, and the inability of Kent and Kennedy to curtail McVeigh or do anything remotely useful themselves. If we make him accountable, suddenly more ball gets through to Hogan and Watts, and he has less impact the other way.

[Moonshadow 17,675]

49 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

 

 

Selective editing to change the context of what the poster was actually saying. Gold medal effort Stu. 

[What 18,810]

Here we go again folks.  A dry track vs a rubbish team and we just delivered a ZERO goal quarter.

Why?  Because we only made two changes on a return game from Darwin - one of those changes a kid that hasn't played in weeks (Wagner).

It is clear that the supporters know more about this team and what to do at selection than the coaching staff, which tells me we are still an amateur club.

Anyone with a brain knew we needed minimum of  3 changes this week, preferably 4.  Pathetic selections yet again, and even if we win this game it doesn't change that fact.