56 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

To me Roos saying it was really poor of him to not make selection changes is him deflecting the attention off everyone else. 

Deflecting heat from coaches:  Immediately after last week's game he had at least 3/4 changes in mind.  He allowed the selection committee to change his mind.  Its a committee and Roos is no autocrat or dictator.  He lets people learn from their experience mistakes.  The selection committee has made plenty of mistakes this year (vs Ess, vs StK) and learnt plenty.

Deflecting heat from the players:  He said a few games ago that whacking the players is not the way to go with a young team.  They want to learn and be educated.  So he isn't going to give them a serve in public.  This way he can keep their morale up, helping build belief.  I'm sure that when they do their reviews all the coaches will let them know the real score. 

And, he certainly isn't going to tell the media what goes on behind closed doors and I'm glad for this.  He is giving media plausible platitudes.  He is also ensuring that Goodwin and players have a 'bruise free' run in the media this year.  So he takes the heat himself.   

Imagine if Goodwin was in the chair and we had the bad results vs Ess, StK and Port the media would be howling with negative headlines.  Roos is doing a brilliant job of protecting his charges.  He has broad shoulders.  He can and will continue to take the heat! 

Pretty much spot on LH. Each week that Roos says selection mistakes were made he is taking the heat. It's happened about 3 or 4 weeks now. Frustrating for us, but there is method in his madness.

I agree that Roos is often deflecting heat, but during the week he said this; 'At the moment, it’s a matter of, if you win last week, it’s hard to make changes.' Why at the moment? I think it may be an overlooked element of his managerial role particular to our especially young team and trying to develop a healthy culture. Do this, this, and this, and you'll be rewarded. Most of us felt that Omac probably wasn't up to it just yet, but it was maybe thought that pulling him and perhaps ANB when they'd fulfilled the role asked of them after a win would have been unfair or even contradictory. It's likely the young kids are holding their spots if they achieve internally-set KPI's. Some may disagree that this is the way to go in building a strong culture but it's just a reflection of where we're currently at. Kid-gloves for a kid-team.

 

Given the way almost the whole team played, laughable to think that a couple of selection changes would have made any real difference, especially given the players who we're talking about, i.e., fringe players.

Deck chairs.

3 hours ago, monoccular said:

Exactly

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

At this puiont I'd like to know Who, exactly makes up the selection commitee???

Thought this thread would be bigger by now!

4 hours ago, Copuchas said:

The lead-up to this game was like watching a slow motion car crash.  The majority on here opined that OMac wasn't up to it basis the Brisbane performance.  Many noted how Westhoff had traditionally torn us apart.   Dixon loomed as a threat.   The impact of a 6 day turnaround on the younger players 10 rounds in was flagged by others (particularly after the flat performance against the Saints following the previous 6 day turnaround.  Pederson was left out without explanation.  Tyson who'd suffered the same affliction played.  Dunn who was an obvious answer to shore up the defence for many was overlooked.  Finally, the markets (who mostly get it right btw) told us promptly what they thought, flipping the odds 48 hours out after teams were announced.

Not good enough in my view and the 3 or 4th time obvious selection errors have been made this year.  Too carried away with the performances of young, inexperienced kids (promising as they are).  Not respectful enough of hardened opposition.  Successfully managed to play Wingard and Westhoff back in to form.  Just so bloody frustrating.

Oh....and btw...for those who think that getting games in to Omac for development is more important than winning games and securing a possible finals appearance this year, please just acknowledge that until the guy has a sufficient skill level to hit a target at 25-30m consistently, he should not even be in the side.

 

Spot on.

57 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Given the way almost the whole team played, laughable to think that a couple of selection changes would have made any real difference, especially given the players who we're talking about, i.e., fringe players.

Deck chairs.

A few good strategic changes can make a big impact because it can free up other players in certain areas.

Whilst there has been criticism of selection, another factor worth considering is the number of players who have been unavailable.  Obviously because of injury in the first place, but also because of the clubs conservative recovery approach, (which I agree with),  and the policy of giving some players a mini preseason if they missed out on one, (also agree with).

The list is quite surprisingly large. Some of them have been playing at Casey for a number of weeks and are ready to be considered if needed and hopefully the list will get even smaller after the bye. Just hope that we are over the hump now.

Brayshaw, Dawes, Jones, Lumumba, Oliver, Pederson, Salem, Trengove, vandenberg, Kennedy-Harris, Spencer. If we add the unavailability of Melksham, there's a lot of talent and / or experience on that list.

Our next 6 day break is from QBD to the following week, a Sunday 1.10pm away game against Sydney. 

I'll be interested to see what we do at the selection table for that game - 6 day break against a top 4 (or top 2) side on the road.

We've also got another one in Round 16 when we go to Darwin to play Fremantle, Round 18 vs West Coast in Perth, Round 20 vs Hawthorn and possibly Round 23 vs Geelong.

Those are some pretty difficult 6 day breaks IMO (adding in Port, that's 4 road trips on 6 day breaks, possibly the trip to Geelong on a 6 day break too, as well as an Etihad game (St K) and Hawthorn). Thanks, AFL.

49 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Our next 6 day break is from QBD to the following week, a Sunday 1.10pm away game against Sydney. 

I'll be interested to see what we do at the selection table for that game - 6 day break against a top 4 (or top 2) side on the road.

We've also got another one in Round 16 when we go to Darwin to play Fremantle, Round 18 vs West Coast in Perth, Round 20 vs Hawthorn and possibly Round 23 vs Geelong.

Those are some pretty difficult 6 day breaks IMO (adding in Port, that's 4 road trips on 6 day breaks, possibly the trip to Geelong on a 6 day break too, as well as an Etihad game (St K) and Hawthorn). Thanks, AFL.

I'm going to that Sydney game too. Urgh.

37 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I'm going to that Sydney game too. Urgh.

Ditto!

Bloods are just getting out of 3rd gear at the moment, they may well be in overdrive in 3 weeks time.

I don't buy this conspiracy theory of Roos saying it to take the blame.

The reason I don't is simple, it's plainly obvious that the selections he has said were wrong, were in fact wrong.

Didn't pick a fully fit team against Essendon. Yep.

Didn't pick a quick enough team against St Kilda. Yep.

Needed another tall against the Bulldogs. Yep.

Didn't freshen up enough and bring in more maturity for Port. Yep.

All of these things were called by numerous supporters both here and on social media before these games, so they weren't an unheard of surprise, and all of them are legitimate factors. Hardly something Roos has just "made up" to save the players from blame.

 

11 hours ago, xarronn said:

Whilst there has been criticism of selection, another factor worth considering is the number of players who have been unavailable.  Obviously because of injury in the first place, but also because of the clubs conservative recovery approach, (which I agree with),  and the policy of giving some players a mini preseason if they missed out on one, (also agree with).

The list is quite surprisingly large. Some of them have been playing at Casey for a number of weeks and are ready to be considered if needed and hopefully the list will get even smaller after the bye. Just hope that we are over the hump now.

Brayshaw, Dawes, Jones, Lumumba, Oliver, Pederson, Salem, Trengove, vandenberg, Kennedy-Harris, Spencer. If we add the unavailability of Melksham, there's a lot of talent and / or experience on that list.

Dawes was an emergency for the Port game. Dunn in good form, Grimes in good form, Trengove in good form. Really don't think injury is a factor.

 

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

Dawes was an emergency for the Port game. Dunn in good form, Grimes in good form, Trengove in good form. Really don't think injury is a factor.

 

If Trenners doesnt play this week or next then im going to start thinking they dont want him to play... He was dropped before his injury and I'm not sure they are convinced he is going to ever be they player they wanted him to be. If he wasnt injured for so long then the media would be treating him like Grimes "a past player on the outer that will be looking for other opportunities at years end". Instead they are looking for a feel good story, unfortunately the story rarely ends as such a fairy tale. The longer he takes to get in the side the less I can see him having a huge impact...

5 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

If Trenners doesnt play this week or next then im going to start thinking they dont want him to play... He was dropped before his injury and I'm not sure they are convinced he is going to ever be they player they wanted him to be. If he wasnt injured for so long then the media would be treating him like Grimes "a past player on the outer that will be looking for other opportunities at years end". Instead they are looking for a feel good story, unfortunately the story rarely ends as such a fairy tale. The longer he takes to get in the side the less I can see him having a huge impact...

Gotta be a lock for this week. Reckon the only reason they didn't play him v Port was so his first game back was at the G.

With our need for fresh legs and mature heads this week he is the prime candidate.

 

16 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

A few gd cod strategic changes can make a big impact because it can free up other players in certransitionreas.

And potentially make a key forward who kIcked the bulk of their goals less effective. Our forward line also provided almost zero pressure which didnt help to limit Port's easy run and transition off HB for quick entry I50. Allowed many one on one contests and easy hit ups through the now maligned and flawed diamond zone. Easy pickings. Poor coaching all round.

Is the good news though that we've worked out a few arent up to afl standard or cant work up to the speed and intensity of afl footy.

As impressive as Michie and Newton have been in the vfl not sure they'll make afl. 

No words this week.

Baffling call unless there is something else going on. Jeffy is out of form, but he hasn't stopped trying and a few of our other forwards still in the team have been shown to be pretty lazy in comparison.

 

Somewhat dismayed.

No real consistency  in retribution.

Mfc getting along well but still making shlt decisions along the way. 

Not confident this was wise. Perhaps meets odd criteria but far from coherent.

9 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Somewhat dismayed.

No real consistency  in retribution.

Mfc getting along well but still making shlt decisions along the way. 

Not confident this was wise. Perhaps meets odd criteria but far from coherent.

I just don't like that there's seemingly different standards at play. Hogan was lazy on Saturday, Jeffy lacked form but he didn't stop trying at least.

 

On 5/16/2016 at 0:07 PM, 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.

or Talia when we could have had him in the draft right?we should have replaced Frawly immediately we didnt and now we are short a no 1 defender

Garlett has played one ... maybe two half decent games in the last 6 weeks.  He's having an ordinary year.

Obvious call is obvious.

Garlett has been dismal since he signed his new contract, and I would argue that his effort has been very poor in the past two weeks. That said, Kent and Harmes have both been worse for longer, so I can't see the logic in dropping Garlett first.

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

Garlett has played one ... maybe two half decent games in the last 6 weeks.  He's having an ordinary year.

Obvious call is obvious.

My problem is he has struggled for form as much as a few other forwards, but his effort has generally been better than most of them. We just seem inconsistent with that. Some players can get away with a lack of second efforts and pressure while others who are trying but it's not clicking yet get dropped. Obviously we're not privy to what happens behind the scenes and internal KPI's so I can only give my opinion from the outside, but from what I see at the grounds every week it's baffling to me that the credits are seemingly given out unevenly.

It just goes hand in hand with what I'm seeing as a culture shift this year which concerns me a little and is why I started this thread.

 

2 minutes ago, poita said:

Garlett has been dismal since he signed his new contract, and I would argue that his effort has been very poor in the past two weeks. That said, Kent and Harmes have both been worse for longer, so I can't see the logic in dropping Garlett first.

Bigger Statement? Dropping a kid doesnt put people on notice... but dropping senior player does. 
I would think if Viney gets up and plays one of Kent or Harmes will make way. (most likely the later)