On 5/4/2016 at 8:19 AM, The Song Formerly Known As said:

in part know, in other parts yes. Sometimes it would be nic eif he was honest about our list, players etc. instead of falling back into philosophies about building football clubs, and educating youth etc, 

I do think there are certain moves that have been made that probably don't give us the best chance of winning games now but may help in the future. 

Roosy loves playing guys like Brayshaw, Oliver and Petracca on absolute jets, let them learn first hand. 

wouldn't be surprised if Clayton plays a good bit of game time on gaz this weekend

3 minutes ago, Peter Griffen said:

I do think there are certain moves that have been made that probably don't give us the best chance of winning games now but may help in the future. 

Roosy loves playing guys like Brayshaw, Oliver and Petracca on absolute jets, let them learn first hand. 

wouldn't be surprised if Clayton plays a good bit of game time on gaz this weekend

I would hope so, if i was in charge i would have Clayton and CP5 more or less take turns following gaz around and learning off him. If disaster strikes we are losing and gaz is getting out of hand put vince or viney on him but other than that let the kids learn from the best.

Highly concerned about TMac and Garland being our only two tall defenders..... Last time we did that Daniher destroyed us.

Roos, post-match: "In hindsight another tall would have been good"

 

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Roos, post-match: "In hindsight another tall would have been good"

 

Selective quote.

Roos went on to say he didn't have another tall that was ready to play in seniors due to injury, form or fitness. 

Edited May 16, 20169 yr by Moonshadow
Spelling

31 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Selective quote.

Roos went on to say he didn't have another tall that was ready to play in seniors due to injury, form or fitness. 

Funny that I haven't seem many teams play 22 midfielders in the past then... Wonder what we'd do with no in-form ruckman, play Syliva there maybe?....

23 minutes ago, stuie said:

Funny that I haven't seem many teams play 22 midfielders in the past then... Wonder what we'd do with no in-form ruckman, play Syliva there maybe?....

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. 

4 minutes ago, 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. 

But we still need to have the right mix of talls and smalls, that's my point.

ANB is in form, but I'm sure we won't bring him in as a key back this week.

 

It was obvious we needed to play another tall in the backline yesterday. Garland was never going to be big enough for Redpath.

I'm not sure which is the bigger mistake, knowingly going in one tall too few or knowingly going in with the match-ups right but with one of your players out of form. I'd suggest probably the former.

Overall, I think that the selection this year has been very ordinary and has cost us at least two games.

3 hours ago, stuie said:

Roos, post-match: "In hindsight another tall would have been good"

 

 

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

Selective quote.

Roos went on to say he didn't have another tall that was ready to play in seniors due to injury, form or fitness. 

This entrie thread is based on 20-20 hindsight... nobody was complaing about our lack of talls after our 73 point win. The reality is the only chance in would have been Omac and he would have struggled against the Big bulldogs anyway. 

Maybe we didn't have any tall defenders ready to go because we've only drafted one (Oscar McDonald) in the past five years. Perhaps we could have taken an experienced defender in the rookie draft instead of wasting our time re-drafting Michie.

Although we finally went after some key forwards this year, we have taken far too many utility types under Roos (eg JKH, Harmes, White, Newton, etc) and not enough key position players.

9 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

 

This entrie thread is based on 20-20 hindsight... nobody was complaing about our lack of talls after our 73 point win. The reality is the only chance in would have been Omac and he would have struggled against the Big bulldogs anyway. 

Yeah not really... If you read around 'Land you'll see plenty of posters calling for the changes that became hindsight laments by Roos. Garland on Redpath, I mean seriously...

Plus, we're talking about selecting teams for oppositions and conditions, that's the whole point in the thread.

 

2 minutes ago, poita said:

Maybe we didn't have any tall defenders ready to go because we've only drafted one (Oscar McDonald) in the past five years. Perhaps we could have taken an experienced defender in the rookie draft instead of wasting our time re-drafting Michie.

Although we finally went after some key forwards this year, we have taken far too many utility types under Roos (eg JKH, Harmes, White, Newton, etc) and not enough key position players.

Very fair point but its hard to fault what we have drafted they havent missed many. Harmes has shown enough that he was a good pickup. With consistancy he will be well worth it. The other 3 however are yet to prove. I like Newton and wouldnt mind seeing him get a game in the next few weeks to see if he is worth keeping on, has good goal sense. White shows glimpses but will struggle to break in the side and JKH ditto. 
 

Just now, poita said:

Maybe we didn't have any tall defenders ready to go because we've only drafted one (Oscar McDonald) in the past five years. Perhaps we could have taken an experienced defender in the rookie draft instead of wasting our time re-drafting Michie.

Although we finally went after some key forwards this year, we have taken far too many utility types under Roos (eg JKH, Harmes, White, Newton, etc) and not enough key position players.

Prior to this year we did happen to trade and draft for Hogan, get Dawes in and also add Pedersen and Frost to the list (although the Frost forward experiment is not working).  

In terms of our tall backs, hindsight is a wonderful thing.  When Roos arrived our backline was seen as a real strength, our midfield had a serious lack of depth.  He has corrected the midfield but the defence has taken a slight step backwards, although I think that is more down to the zone defence than a lack of talent.  We just need to correct a few things and I think, in time, it will fall into place.

20 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

 

This entrie thread is based on 20-20 hindsight... nobody was complaing about our lack of talls after our 73 point win. The reality is the only chance in would have been Omac and he would have struggled against the Big bulldogs anyway. 

I was, Wright and Lynch kicked six between them in a team that struggled to get the ball inside the forward fifty.

Both of Wright's goals came from taking uncontested marks with neither Garland or McDonald anywhere near him.

13 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I was, Wright and Lynch kicked six between them in a team that struggled to get the ball inside the forward fifty.

Both of Wright's goals came from taking uncontested marks with neither Garland or McDonald anywhere near him.

Then having another tall would have made no difference then! A tall would have been slower and even further away from him! Contested marks mean we need more talls if they are uncontested then it doesnt matter who his man should have been.

Dont get me wrong I do think Omac should play next week cos we need another tall but our setup did work last week then not this. I think that our biggest issue is that right now our press doesnt hold up against the best regardless of who is standing in our back half. Look at the dogs backline, they were short but they executed the press and zone better and won the game. As we get better at our execution of the zone we will start to win more games against better clubs, regardless of if we play tall or small. 

We have had bags of goals kicked against us by tall forwards in every game so far this season except the GWS game (Cameron didn't play and Lobb still kicked 2.3). Going in short in the backline was never ever going to be a good idea.

I spent the whole game watching their midfield tear through the middle, in numbers, time after time, thinking if only Dunn were playing!

What originally was the foundation of our game going forwards ( npi ) , our defence , has now become  the weakest link. This has no doubt come about because of the new game plan  which requires far more offensive  pressure  from the defenders  and the new abysmal zone policy.

Both aspects highlight the limitations of the current list

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

What originally was the foundation of our game going forwards ( npi ) , our defence , has now become  the weakest link. This has no doubt come about because of the new game plan  which requires far more offensive  pressure  from the defenders  and the new abysmal zone policy.

Both aspects highlight the limitations of the current list

is the zone really abysmal? the dogs played the exact same zone with small defenders and it worked briliantly well. It is no a bad gameplan, infact its a very good one. We are hit and miss executing it and i think we need to take a step back and understand some weeks its going to work others it wont. Next year you can start jumping up and down when we get torn apart, this year give them a break. 

6 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

is the zone really abysmal? the dogs played the exact same zone with small defenders and it worked briliantly well. It is no a bad gameplan, infact its a very good one. We are hit and miss executing it and i think we need to take a step back and understand some weeks its going to work others it wont. Next year you can start jumping up and down when we get torn apart, this year give them a break. 

It's abysmal when you can't do it for want of players capable.

23 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I spent the whole game watching their midfield tear through the middle, in numbers, time after time, thinking if only Dunn were playing!

Yeah you're right, let's hope we pick 22 short midfielders this week then...

 

1 hour ago, poita said:

Maybe we didn't have any tall defenders ready to go because we've only drafted one (Oscar McDonald) in the past five years. Perhaps we could have taken an experienced defender in the rookie draft instead of wasting our time re-drafting Michie.

Although we finally went after some key forwards this year, we have taken far too many utility types under Roos (eg JKH, Harmes, White, Newton, etc) and not enough key position players.

Who the hell is Sam Frost?

Just now, beelzebub said:

It's abysmal when you can't do it for want of players capable.

I agree we are 2 defenders short of being able to do it really well but is it right to stagnate the rest of the team while we wait for those defenders to come? Hopefully we can trade for 1 and Omac can develop in the next year or 2 but untill then we have to work with what we have got.

The point of the zone is to win the scoring shots count and back yourself to win from there. From round 3 we are +5 in scoring shots. that tells me that while we are inconsistent, we have been able to get it to work at times. We were -7 scoring shots on the weekend and that's not good enough for that 1 game but the trend has been positive. They will get better just give it time.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

But we still need to have the right mix of talls and smalls, that's my point.

ANB is in form, but I'm sure we won't bring him in as a key back this week.

 

And which tall back that is in form or not coming back from injury would you have picked? Roos' whole point was that there were none available. It's not a selection table mistake because there was none to play unless out of desperation. Thus your point is irrelevant.