Selection Failures

[Deestar9 1,614]

I went with a Collingwood supporter to this game ...it is so refreshing hearing a view which isn't clouded by emotion ....he concluded that we are not far away ....he could see our game plan ...thought it similar to the dogs but our execution is still a little fumbly but as we get more games into our very young team and they become more confident in each other ...it will turn quickly...,like it or not....the score was a true reflection of where we are at in relation to the doggies but still believe we have more upside ...,we didn't or weren't allowed to play that well yesterday but we never gave up & that's what I like....a lot of times when they got that quick avenue to goal was because a kick into our forward line was executed poorly ...,they get the turnover & they're off ....can't blame the defenders 

 

 

 

 

[Bang Bang Bang 5,824]

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.

We've had Dunn, McDonald and Garland on the list for all of those five years, all of whom were mainstays in the 22 up until this season. We also had Frawley until the end of 2014, and when he left we immediately signed Frost as his replacement. On top of that we drafted OMac as you mentioned. There was no need to go overboard with key defenders, but we'll surely make it a priority at the end of the year. The severe regression of Garland and Dunn being out of form/favour has left us no choice. They need to start playing Frost in his right position too. He's big, competitive and athletic. I can't see him being any worse than Garland.

[ManDee 7,134]

1 minute ago, Moonshadow said:

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. 

Who would I rather have played in defence against the Doggies? Not Garland. Frost or Pedersen or OMac or Dawes, all would have been better than Judy. Picking Grland at the moment is out of desperation.

Your premise that you cannot pick someone coming back from injury or poor form eliminates almost every player playing in the reserves in any side. Thus your point is irrelevant. 

[stuie 7,374]

51 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

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.

We did lose Frawley, Fitzpatrick & Howe (not tall, but good intercept mark).

 

[beelzebub 23,342]

6 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

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.

We're short two talls....and possibly a medium sized lad with very good disposal. They may well be among our midst already but weren't on the park yesterday.

I have no concerns about the zone other than relying on it at all times. From my bball days you needed to be able to switch between modes according to the game/opposition. Some says/games a particular modus just wouldn't click. You always sought  to defend as to minimise their score. I see footy as no different. Reliance on winning a shootout needs absolute abilityinfront of sticks by your shooters. We saw that idea's shortcoming didn't we.

[monoccular 17,418]

7 minutes ago, Sylvia Saint said:

We've had Dunn, McDonald and Garland on the list for all of those five years, all of whom were mainstays in the 22 up until this season. We also had Frawley until the end of 2014, and when he left we immediately signed Frost as his replacement. On top of that we drafted OMac as you mentioned. There was no need to go overboard with key defenders, but we'll surely make it a priority at the end of the year. The severe regression of Garland and Dunn being out of form/favour has left us no choice. They need to start playing Frost in his right position too. He's big, competitive and athletic. I can't see him being any worse than Garland.

.....and haven't played him in defence at all....did he play in defence in VFL at the weekend?  If so, how did he go?

Having been a bit of a Garland fan for a long time, I hate to say I think the game has overtaken him.

Edited May 16, 2016 by monoccular
add

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

We're short two talls....and possibly a medium sized lad with very good disposal. They may well be among our midst already but weren't on the park yesterday.

I have no concerns about the zone other than relying on it at all times. From my bball days you needed to be able to switch between modes according to the game/opposition. Some says/games a particular modus just wouldn't click. You always sought  to defend as to minimise their score. I see footy as no different. Reliance on winning a shootout needs absolute abilityinfront of sticks by your shooters. We saw that idea's shortcoming didn't we.

I would like to see a plan B. But in reality it never really felt like the gameplan yesterday was costing us, it was just a little bit of class. Dogs never scored more than 3 goals in a row. I know it looks bad sometimes but if we had the class to finish those chances in the 3rd we would have gone into the last still in the game. That lack of class, which will come, is all that we were missing. The game against St Kilda on the other hand we needed a plan B because we were leaking so many in a row. But idk maybe they know its not working but persist just so they can learn. Education is still more important than success right now. I would assume that line will be drawn next year but we shall see. 

Side note: you commented on ability infront of the sticks. We are the only team in the comp who has kicked more goals than behinds every week for the year. Question the number of opportunities all we want but we have to admit they are the best at taking them when they get them. How long we keep that up who knows but im happy with what they have produced infront of goal to date.

[Akum 2,660]

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.

[Moonshadow 17,676]

2 hours ago, ManDee said:

Who would I rather have played in defence against the Doggies? Not Garland. Frost or Pedersen or OMac or Dawes, all would have been better than Judy. Picking Grland at the moment is out of desperation.

Your premise that you cannot pick someone coming back from injury or poor form eliminates almost every player playing in the reserves in any side. Thus your point is irrelevant. 

Did you miss Roosy's presser where he said he preferred not to play players coming back from injury too soon (eg OMac) or out of form (eg Dunn)? I guess he weighed up Garland vs those guys and chose Garland as the best option. Not ideal, agreed.

Pedo was chop out ruck and 2nd tall forward, so going back would've made Gawn ruck 100% and put more pressure on Hogan/Watts. Frost is a badly out of form forward, so probably not going to be picked as a kpd. Dawes is a kpf not yet ready for AFL seniors, hardly played in 6 mths. So that leaves OMac on your list, who is coming back from concussion a couple of weeks ago, so again no.

And your last paragraph is not what I claim as a premise, it's what Roos said, so yes, it is relevant.   

[ManDee 7,134]

6 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Did you miss Roosy's presser where he said he preferred not to play players coming back from injury too soon (eg OMac) or out of form (eg Dunn)? I guess he weighed up Garland vs those guys and chose Garland as the best option. Not ideal, agreed.

Pedo was chop out ruck and 2nd tall forward, so going back would've made Gawn ruck 100% and put more pressure on Hogan/Watts. Frost is a badly out of form forward, so probably not going to be picked as a kpd. Dawes is a kpf not yet ready for AFL seniors, hardly played in 6 mths. So that leaves OMac on your list, who is coming back from concussion a couple of weeks ago, so again no.

And your last paragraph is not what I claim as a premise, it's what Roos said, so yes, it is relevant.   

So you left out the "too soon", that makes a big difference to your earlier post.

FROST!

If Frost plays back, (he was drafted to replace Frawley) Pedo can still ruck. If Frost plays forward(NOT my choice) Pedo can go back. Frost needs to be given time in the backline.

The premise you posted was yours, as you say Roos said "too soon".

[Moonshadow 17,676]

45 minutes ago, ManDee said:

So you left out the "too soon", that makes a big difference to your earlier post.

FROST!

If Frost plays back, (he was drafted to replace Frawley) Pedo can still ruck. If Frost plays forward(NOT my choice) Pedo can go back. Frost needs to be given time in the backline.

The premise you posted was yours, as you say Roos said "too soon".

Now your just making [censored] up. Helps if you don't take individual posts in a conversation in isolation, ie. context. If you read through my replies you'll see I was referring all along to what Roos said in his presser. Keep up man!

Maybe you should email Roos your wisdom re Frost. He's probably never thought of that before......

 

[ManDee 7,134]

15 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Now your just making [censored] up. Helps if you don't take individual posts in a conversation in isolation, ie. context. If you read through my replies you'll see I was referring all along to what Roos said in his presser. Keep up man!

Maybe you should email Roos your wisdom re Frost. He's probably never thought of that before......

 

OK I will let that go. 

Why have we recruited a tall mobile athletic key defender to replace Frawley (as stated when drafted) and not played him regularly in defence?

Paul Roos-

“It’s hard, because we’re trying to play form players and guys that deserve to be picked,” he said.

“Oscar [McDonald] hasn’t had a lot of continuity, with injury and being in and out of the team. He had concussion about three weeks ago and hasn’t had real consistency, so we’re trying to pick guys when they’re in really, really good form, rather than manufacturing a team.

“In hindsight, another tall would’ve been good, but you want them coming in, in really good form.”

OK so on that basis if Gawn get injured (I hope not) he won't pick Spencer! BS -

Face facts they have made selection errors in each of our losses, no crystal ball required.  Several posters were saying we were too short in defence here last week. Garland does not play tall, doesn't seem to play small either at the moment. Frost, OMac, Pedersen and Dawes can all play back. We also had Fitzpatrick?  Sorry getting angry now.

PS:- They brought Salem straight back in!

Edited May 16, 2016 by ManDee

[stuie 7,374]

49 minutes ago, ManDee said:

OK so on that basis if Gawn get injured (I hope not) he won't pick Spencer! BS -

Exactly.

 

[ManDee 7,134]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Exactly.

 

Exactly BS or Exactly they won't pick Spencer?

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

Exactly BS or Exactly they won't pick Spencer?

Exactly that it's BS. I posted a similar thing earlier in this thread, and wondered how we'll go when we pick a team of 22 small mids because they're "in-form".

 

[ManDee 7,134]

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Exactly that it's BS. I posted a similar thing earlier in this thread, and wondered how we'll go when we pick a team of 22 small mids because they're "in-form".

 

Exactly.

[Moonshadow 17,676]

You two should:

a) Get a room. It's cute to see you so happy together.

b) Understand that they didn't bring in another tall back for last week's game because they didn't think anyone was fit enough or in form to warrant selection. That's what Roos said. I've never said it was the correct call, but got into this discussion to put stuie's one liner quote into context with what Roos said in his presser. If you look back in this thread and other post match threads you will see I have been critical of selection for quite some weeks. You two are straw man arguing now.

I'll leave you to keep going in circles.

[picket fence 17,136]

Mitch White right in the mix for Sundays game I believe !

[ManDee 7,134]

5 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

You two should:

a) Get a room. It's cute to see you so happy together.

b) Understand that they didn't bring in another tall back for last week's game because they didn't think anyone was fit enough or in form to warrant selection. That's what Roos said. I've never said it was the correct call, but got into this discussion to put stuie's one liner quote into context with what Roos said in his presser. If you look back in this thread and other post match threads you will see I have been critical of selection for quite some weeks. You two are straw man arguing now.

I'll leave you to keep going in circles.

Moonie, I have asked in several ways and you have chosen to ignore, one last try. Why not Frost? Now don't roll out the not in form, is Garland in form? Pedersen, Dawes, OMac & Frost can all play back, do you think Garland was a better option?

[beelzebub 23,342]

4 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Moonie, I have asked in several ways and you have chosen to ignore, one last try. Why not Frost? Now don't roll out the not in form, is Garland in form? Pedersen, Dawes, OMac & Frost can all play back, do you think Garland was a better option?

Mandee about the only reason Id have for not  bringing Frosty in the backline is to give the chance to reacquaint himself with the new plan and workloads etc.  Jack is a backman, plain as.Why we've stuffed around is anyones guess.

[dazzledavey36 54,842]

11 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Mitch White right in the mix for Sundays game I believe !

Source?

[stuie 7,374]

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

You two should:

a) Get a room. It's cute to see you so happy together.

b) Understand that they didn't bring in another tall back for last week's game because they didn't think anyone was fit enough or in form to warrant selection. That's what Roos said. I've never said it was the correct call, but got into this discussion to put stuie's one liner quote into context with what Roos said in his presser. If you look back in this thread and other post match threads you will see I have been critical of selection for quite some weeks. You two are straw man arguing now.

I'll leave you to keep going in circles.

Ok, question then.

Gawn goes down with injury. Who comes in to ruck? ANB?

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

18 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ok, question then.

Gawn goes down with injury. Who comes in to ruck? ANB?

 

Clearly Kennedy.

No one will see him coming.

Literally.

[picket fence 17,136]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Source?

Would inner retinue suffice??

[Akum 2,660]

56 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Mandee about the only reason Id have for not  bringing Frosty in the backline is to give the chance to reacquaint himself with the new plan and workloads etc.  Jack is a backman, plain as.Why we've stuffed around is anyones guess.

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.