Wasn't hard to figure really was it.

Frustrating

10 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

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.

Not many set the world on fire at Casey

Some courageous list decisions need to be made at this seasons end.

It seems our "depth" isn't actually as good as it needs to be.

22 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

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.

Yes it's pretty remarkable. Same mistake after Alice Springs, same mistake after Darwin. Same mistake after every NT game in the entire coaching tenure of Roos.

What the hell is so hard to understand about rotating our youth through the VFL? Does it really take a brain surgeon to realise that turning up with a tired team against the Saints at Etihad, which is exactly how we got thumped by them a few months ago, is a surefire way to lose a game?

Just mindboggling. I can't wait to hear Roos' excuses (aka spin) this week about how he, once again, failed to beat St Kilda. Yet another team that joins the inglorious list of teams Roos never defeated in his entire time at the MFC.

On 5/29/2016 at 0:19 PM, monoccular said:

Exactly

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

At this piont I'd like to know Who, exactly makes up the selection commitee??? That plus Why, as highly paid "Brains Trust" they can get it so wrong time after time after time!

4 hours ago, chook fowler said:

Not many set the world on fire at Casey

Not the point.

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Not the point.

So you have already said

12 minutes ago, stuie said:

Not the point.

Not the point either.

A selection failures thread can include discussion about in form Casey players surely.

 

Why Kennedy was picked is beyond me.

11 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Why Kennedy was picked is beyond me.

I actually think Grimes' inability to be able to tackle and his lack of leg speed meant that so often they were able to rebound quickly off half back. I didn't think Kennedy should have been playing either, but I'd probably prefer him to Newton. ANB is being groomed as a mid and not a half forward, so he wouldn't have played there.

6 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

I actually think Grimes' inability to be able to tackle and his lack of leg speed meant that so often they were able to rebound quickly off half back. I didn't think Kennedy should have been playing either, but I'd probably prefer him to Newton. ANB is being groomed as a mid and not a half forward, so he wouldn't have played there.

Was glad Grimes was picked this week after a good game last week, but geez I almost felt sorry for him today. He looked lost and just kinda down, like he'd been told before the game it was his last one for us (I don't actually think that happened, just explaining). Just devoid of confidence and spirit.

55 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Why Kennedy was picked is beyond me.

If you scale the "Disposals" and "Fantasy Points" statistics against the players' time on ground (which gives you a rate at which they are being accumulated compared to other players, rather than a total), Kennedy ranks 4th and 5th in the team respectively.  I know that doesn't definitively say anything, but it does suggest Kennedy's very limited impact could be due to the fact that he spent a paltry 65% of the time on the field.  He can only shoulder as much of the load as he is being asked to.

I thought after the game that he should be the first dropped, but after looking at that, I'm not sure.  If I felt I could sit through the horror of this match again I'd watch the replay and keep a closer eye on his touches, because I don't remember any particular soft efforts or terrible kicks or anything like that.  

5 hours ago, Adzman said:

Some courageous list decisions need to be made at this seasons end.

It seems our "depth" isn't actually as good as it needs to be.

Maybe it is the selectors who are out of their depth.

Maybe Roos isn't as good as his results at Sydney, pampered by the AFL, suggests?  Maybe he lacks depth too.

 

 

Our depth is fine. Yeah it can improve but it is fine.

It is our quality and middle tier that was the issue today.

Our top 10 are inconsistent. Watts and Viney have been relatively consistent this year.  But Jones, Vince, Hogan, Tyson, McDonald, Gawn, Garlett and Jetta have been up and down.

After those 10 who are the next 5? We have a real pack of players after that who may not make it long term. 

 

That's the issue, not the bottom 5 or the players at Casey.

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Our depth is fine. Yeah it can improve but it is fine.

It is our quality and middle tier that was the issue today.

Our top 10 are inconsistent. Watts and Viney have been relatively consistent this year.  But Jones, Vince, Hogan, Tyson, McDonald, Gawn, Garlett and Jetta have been up and down.

After those 10 who are the next 5? We have a real pack of players after that who may not make it long term. 

 

That's the issue, not the bottom 5 or the players at Casey.

I think you've nailed it. It's not the coach, or the zone, or the depth, or the talent, or whatever we go looking for. It's that, for whatever reason, we fall apart for periods in games. It's Bailey-eske, but without the blowouts or us smashing them. But we can look as good as the best and then as bad as the worst all in a half of football. I don't have an answer but this is something that has happened off and on for 25 year (forgetting the Neeld years, and I am really trying to forget them).

I tend to think that when the kids see the older bloke panic they panic too. There was a lot of it against St Kilda. We had enough of the ball but under pressure we ran in circles. The mids played handball circles until it was undone. The defenders didn't know where they should be. The forwards stood still and waited for the perfect pass.

But when we were on, it was all different. It's between the ears. It has to be. How to fix that, I really don't know.

Nat Jones usually starts these handball circles. He is  serial offender,has beeen doing it is whole career and calls for the ball way too much. It probabls fro the fact that he has been forced to try too hard to make up for low skilled team mates and he cant stop doing it 

He is now teaching the younger players these flaws. Every game if he starts doing it they all follow we invariably lose 

When he kicks the ball we generally win

He is the one whos game falls apart under pressure when he should be leading and guiding

6 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

... How to fix that, I really don't know.

Unfortunately i think the only answer is time, patience and off field consistency combined with significant list turn over. 

In some ways we are half way there. Under Roos we have virtually culled the whole list in 3 years. We now have the youngest "best 22" in the comp. I think we were on average 12-18 months younger and 20 odd games experience less than St Kilda. I think I also read this was the closest we've been to an opponent in terms of average age all year. 

 

So we've done the "hard" part. Bitten the bullet and restructured off field and culled the list.  Now the "easy" part should be continue list turn over while waiting out the development. 

Over the next 3 years the cream will rise (hopefully Petracca, Salem, Bayshaw et. al.) will begin to challenge for spots in our top 10. That means our top 10 changes and probably gets more consistent and our next 5-7 gets better defined. They may still be inconsistent but hopefully they won't be a relied on. 

Sticking out the course without panicking is the ONLY thing we can do now. What good could a new board or coach do? Nothing. Let them develop the list all the way before final judgement. We've been bad so long and we dont the benefit of qualify senior payers to see us through a rebuild like hawthorn did so we have to take the long path.

 

 

1 hour ago, jackaub said:

Nat Jones usually starts these handball circles. He is  serial offender,has beeen doing it is whole career and calls for the ball way too much. It probabls fro the fact that he has been forced to try too hard to make up for low skilled team mates and he cant stop doing it 

He is now teaching the younger players these flaws. Every game if he starts doing it they all follow we invariably lose 

When he kicks the ball we generally win

He is the one whos game falls apart under pressure when he should be leading and guiding

Jones has been a wonderful servant of this club in very trying times, but he's never been an A-grader and never will.  He's not creative and makes poor decisions.

He's overrated by many on here.

14 hours ago, deanox said:

Our depth is fine. Yeah it can improve but it is fine.

It is our quality and middle tier that was the issue today.

Our top 10 are inconsistent. Watts and Viney have been relatively consistent this year.  But Jones, Vince, Hogan, Tyson, McDonald, Gawn, Garlett and Jetta have been up and down.

After those 10 who are the next 5? We have a real pack of players after that who may not make it long term. 

 

That's the issue, not the bottom 5 or the players at Casey.

Excellent post deanox although of the 10 names that you mentioned, I might not include 1 or 2 names.  And I reckon another 2 or 3 of the players that you mentioned have been quite consistent too.  But your general summation is on the money, all the same.

The reality is the quality of the 10 players that you mentioned aren't as good as the best 10 players at a number of other clubs ... and some of those other clubs have up to 13-15 players who are 'locks'. 

The good news is that we have others who could join that group of 10 players - time will tell.  We often play well and can win games when those 10 players (or most of them) play well.  Back in 2012/13 we had less than a handful of players who could be relied upon so we've come a long way. 

Those who can become locks are players like Petracca,  Oliver,  Brayshaw,  Salem,  Hunt and 2 or 3 others.  Again, time will tell but the quality of our best players needs to get better and we need more of them.  We just need to keep turning the list over with a view of picking up a couple of good players per season (any more than that could be seen as a bonus)

As for the selection policy this season - I don't share the view that many here have had - I've liked the experimentation and that experimentation was always going to throw up some mixed results.