Selection Failures

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

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.

 

10 hours 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.

 

[Little Goffy 14,439]

It has been thoroughly reported for many years from various perspectives (players, coaches, fitness managers) that playing a night game basically eliminates that night's recovery and even sleep. It takes half the night for most players to even wind down to a regular mood. Especially young players without thoroughly familiar after-match routines.

But the short turnaround doesn't cover the confusion and disorganisation.

I think our main persistent selection error this season has been a persistent inclusion of one tall forward too many.

[picket fence 17,032]

10 hours 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?

I strongly suggested Oliver for Harmes, possibly ANB for Frost !

Hunt, Wagner were rag dolled yesterday, Kent left his form back at the G and Lamumba did as he does and if it works , Fine if it doesn't it looks and is horrible. 

Most scathing criticism re players is with Mc Donald, FWIW I would contemplate a trade for him at years end for the following resaons

1 He is too hit and miss with kicking

2 He gets outmanouevered time after time

3 He makes Dumb Decisions

If we perservere with Frost then give him a chance down back!

Biggest criticism is with abysmal coaching yesterday!

Edited May 1, 2016 by picket fence

[Skuit 10,030]

This was also our first sub-week turnaround for the season.

4 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

It has been thoroughly reported for many years from various perspectives (players, coaches, fitness managers) that playing a night game basically eliminates that night's recovery and even sleep. It takes half the night for most players to even wind down to a regular mood. Especially young players without thoroughly familiar after-match routines.

 

 

[DeeSpencer 25,434]

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.

Name the 4 you'd have taken out for those 4?

With perfect 20/20 hindsight I'd have played Matt Jones for Frost and probably ANB for Salem, with Vince going to half back.

Otherwise I would've left Oliver out given Petracca was in.

That would've been 3 changes. 

Still not sure it would fix much. As a team we need to run more and pressure better, we can't just chuck in a couple of fit guys to cover up the defensive failings of multiple players. 

I don't think we are training defensive pressing anywhere near the way the Saints must be. Too often we aren't getting one tackler to each player and sliding our defense as a unit.

Plus we need composed defenders with the ball, which is where guys like Salem and Wagner have been great the last few weeks. Getting through pressure is just as often a skill exercise than a physical one. 

[mdemon 266]

43 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. 

Accurate assessment Praha.

I was at the game with a St.Kilda mate and we both commented about 1/2 way through the 2nd quarter that Melbourne looked lethargic/tired and unable/unwilling to run and spread as well as St.Kilda were.

Obviously hopes were high that the 1/2 time break would give the coaches a chance to get the team to 'snap out of it' but, alas, the Saints came out & blew us away with an 8 goal quarter.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, several players could have possibly been rested but as others have noted, bit hard to pick which ones (and also hard to justify changes to a winning team)

[bing181 9,193]

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

Biggest criticism is with abysmal coaching yesterday!

We didn't lose because we didn't choose Olivier. It would have made zilch difference in the sum of things.

As for the abysmal coaching ... given the Hawks results, lucky we didn't get Alistair Clarkson in. He's obviously an even more abysmal coach than Roos.

[praha 11,227]

3 hours ago, stuie said:

We played on the same day...

 

You can be quite dense sometimes. Yes they played on the same day but Saints played at 1pm, Melbourne at 8pm. A night match means you're done by 1-2am for some players and full prep for the following week doesn't start until 2 days after, Tuesday in Melbourne's case. Saints players had the evening to recover before prep on Monday. Richmond we're similarly flat last night while Port had a full 7 days.

Collingwood and Essendon both late on Sunday after a Monday match. Scheduling had some influence here. They were flat.

 

[SaberFang 7,151]

2 minutes ago, praha said:

You can be quite dense sometimes. Yes they played on the same day but Saints played at 1pm, Melbourne at 8pm. A night match means you're done by 1-2am for some players and full prep for the following week doesn't start until 2 days after, Tuesday in Melbourne's case. Saints players had the evening to recover before prep on Monday. Richmond we're similarly flat last night while Port had a full 7 days.

Collingwood and Essendon both late on Sunday after a Monday match. Scheduling had some influence here. They were flat.

 

Of the teams who played last Sunday night and Monday, Melbourne have lost, Richmond have lost, Essendon have kicked 1 goal the first half (why, oh why, did we lose to this rabble?) and Collingwood play the Eagles tonight. Will they come close?

Richmond's loss was probably the most baffling; on paper you'd have to think Port were missing too much talent to overcome the Tiges.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

8 hours ago, jumbo returns said:

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

Just answers questions in a huge roundabout way, and spouts coaching philosophies. Blah blah bloody blah 

[Redleg 40,811]

15 hours ago, stuie said:

 

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?

 

 

 

This irks me big time.

[stuie 7,374]

4 hours ago, praha said:

You can be quite dense sometimes. Yes they played on the same day but Saints played at 1pm, Melbourne at 8pm. A night match means you're done by 1-2am for some players and full prep for the following week doesn't start until 2 days after, Tuesday in Melbourne's case. Saints players had the evening to recover before prep on Monday. Richmond we're similarly flat last night while Port had a full 7 days.

Collingwood and Essendon both late on Sunday after a Monday match. Scheduling had some influence here. They were flat.

 

So we didn't play on the same day? That's all I said. Am I wrong?

 

[Undeeterred 3,117]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

So we didn't play on the same day? That's all I said. Am I wrong?

 

That's disingenuous.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

On 4/30/2016 at 1:39 AM, stuie said:

How is it rank amateurs like us here on 'Land can get it right, but the actual paid professionals keep getting it wrong?

Oh for christ's sake....

Stuie, you're better than that.

[stuie 7,374]

9 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

Oh for christ's sake....

Stuie, you're better than that.

Coaches after Essendon loss - We picked underdone players, we'll learn from it

Coaches after St Kilda loss - We picked the wrong players for the ground, we'll learn from it

 

[drdrake 3,157]

We just don't seem to have our balance right.  We are to short down back and to tall up forward and this stems from the lack of a second ruck forward, we are playing two guys to fill one role .  We are asking H to attack and also play as a third tall defender, we are basically playing H, Salem, Wagner, Hunt and Jetta plus two tall McDonald and Dunn, add in Vince that gets back there as well.  You need to get O Mcdonald in or push Frost back, he isn't a forward but running out of the defensive 50 he would be valuable.

McDonald is playing that zoning third man up role, he really doesn't get a man. Dunn and Jetta seem to be our only lock down defenders.

I like our forward set up of Garlett, Hogan, Pederson, Kent, Watts and Petracca, that forward 6 can kick you enough goals.  Just seems we have to many players in to play the same roll

 

[stuie 7,374]

8 minutes ago, drdrake said:

We just don't seem to have our balance right.  We are to short down back and to tall up forward and this stems from the lack of a second ruck forward, we are playing two guys to fill one role .  We are asking H to attack and also play as a third tall defender, we are basically playing H, Salem, Wagner, Hunt and Jetta plus two tall McDonald and Dunn, add in Vince that gets back there as well.  You need to get O Mcdonald in or push Frost back, he isn't a forward but running out of the defensive 50 he would be valuable.

McDonald is playing that zoning third man up role, he really doesn't get a man. Dunn and Jetta seem to be our only lock down defenders.

I like our forward set up of Garlett, Hogan, Pederson, Kent, Watts and Petracca, that forward 6 can kick you enough goals.  Just seems we have to many players in to play the same roll

 

Yeah it's that Pedersen/Frost combo that is basically leaving us a player short because as you said we're combining them into one role.

Marking wise they're pretty even, but Frost is much better fitness wise and applies better pressure and Pedo is a far, far better backup ruck option. The reason I tend to lean towards Frost is that I think he could possibly learn to be a better backup ruck in time, whereas Pedo isn't getting any younger or quicker. Eventually I think we all hope the Weed will relegate both of them to depth (or at least the backline), but until then we have to make do I guess.

 

[drdrake 3,157]

18 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah it's that Pedersen/Frost combo that is basically leaving us a player short because as you said we're combining them into one role.

Marking wise they're pretty even, but Frost is much better fitness wise and applies better pressure and Pedo is a far, far better backup ruck option. The reason I tend to lean towards Frost is that I think he could possibly learn to be a better backup ruck in time, whereas Pedo isn't getting any younger or quicker. Eventually I think we all hope the Weed will relegate both of them to depth (or at least the backline), but until then we have to make do I guess.

 

I'm the Opposite, I think Pedo is a better mark and forward option.  On the Weed he is our key forward security, I don't think one off Watts or Hogan will be with us by 2018.

[stuie 7,374]

2 minutes ago, drdrake said:

I'm the Opposite, I think Pedo is a better mark and forward option.  On the Weed he is our key forward security, I don't think one off Watts or Hogan will be with us by 2018.

I reckon Pedo is the better contested mark, but Frost is better on the lead and inside 50, that's why I guess I call them even for marking. I just really like Frost's forward pressure and ability to make space for Watts and Hogan. Pedo has really improved with his ruckwork this year though, it's quite noticeable.

 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Coaches after Essendon loss - We picked underdone players, we'll learn from it

Coaches after St Kilda loss - We picked the wrong players for the ground, we'll learn from it

 

Lets face it when he first came to the club Roos said it was his job to take the heat while they develop a decent list. We all know the above is bull shite but its his job to take ownership when the players under perform. He comes out, talks crap and then internaly they will be looking at what the players did wrong not who the coaches did and didnt pick. Those who were poor may be dropped and we move on. Roos cops the heat and the players get to review and reload without all the media heat they would have had if Roos had come out and said "they were just not good enough" which we all know is the case (hogan excluded this week)

[Moonshadow 17,675]

The only pressure Frost applied is to the backs of opponents when he clumsily fell on them stumbling to the contest

[Wiseblood 24,637]

I think the club might slowly be realising that, if we are playing Watts as a third tall, we only need one more of Frost/Pedersen in the side.  We can't carry both, otherwise it's easier for teams to run us off our feet when they take the ball off half back and through the middle of the ground.  We need at least one extra runner.

[stuie 7,374]

3 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Lets face it when he first came to the club Roos said it was his job to take the heat while they develop a decent list. We all know the above is bull shite but its his job to take ownership when the players under perform. He comes out, talks crap and then internaly they will be looking at what the players did wrong not who the coaches did and didnt pick. Those who were poor may be dropped and we move on. Roos cops the heat and the players get to review and reload without all the media heat they would have had if Roos had come out and said "they were just not good enough" which we all know is the case (hogan excluded this week)

Yeah there's elements of that for sure, but I don't think it's any coincidence that the one time we've won at Etihad in the last 24 games was also the one time we picked a small quick side.

 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

13 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah there's elements of that for sure, but I don't think it's any coincidence that the one time we've won at Etihad in the last 24 games was also the one time we picked a small quick side.

 

I agree to a point i would have rathered an extra small forward looking back on it now. But I was also there when north played the night before and their key forwards were all very good, one of those won them the game. I think that it was our players performance that was more dissapointing than 20 20 hindsight selection decisions. I thought the side was correct based on the last 3 weeks performances. Kent, Garlett, Harmes and Kennedy were all more disappointing than talls Watts and Hogan. So saying we were too tall i feel is throwing Pedo and Frost under the bus... 

[stuie 7,374]

4 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I agree to a point i would have rathered an extra small forward looking back on it now. But I was also there when north played the night before and their key forwards were all very good, one of those won them the game. I think that it was our players performance that was more dissapointing than 20 20 hindsight selection decisions. I thought the side was correct based on the last 3 weeks performances. Kent, Garlett, Harmes and Kennedy were all more disappointing than talls Watts and Hogan. So saying we were too tall i feel is throwing Pedo and Frost under the bus... 

Saints had a short break too, brought in 3 fresh players, 2 of which destroyed us.