14 hours ago, stuie said:

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.

 

Anyone who thinks Jeffy's "effort" last week was acceptable didn't watch the game.  And I'm not talking about the incident that has been magnified this week.  He only chased now and again, fumbled regularly and didn't put his body behind the ball enough when it was on the ground.  I went with a friend who doesn't barrack for either Hawthorn or Melbourne and he was scathing of Garlett's effort, couldn't believe how lazy he was.  His only good games in the past 6 weeks have been when we've played the witches hats of Gold Coast and Brisbane, and for a senior player, that's not good enough.

20 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

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) 

Yeah that's a good point actually. But we also need to keep the culture building in check and make sure the standards are consistent.

 

1 minute ago, Glenn Molloy said:

Anyone who thinks Jeffy's "effort" last week was acceptable didn't watch the game.  And I'm not talking about the incident that has been magnified this week.  He only chased now and again, fumbled regularly and didn't put his body behind the ball enough when it was on the ground.  I went with a friend who doesn't barrack for either Hawthorn or Melbourne and he was scathing of Garlett's effort, couldn't believe how lazy he was.  His only good games in the past 6 weeks have been when we've played the witches hats of Gold Coast and Brisbane, and for a senior player, that's not good enough.

I was at the game and I've watched the replay so you can take back your typical "anyone who thinks differently to me wasn't there" internet comment.

As I've said, Garlett has been struggling for form, but his efforts were better than a fair few others. What did you think of Hogan's effort on Saturday?

 

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

I was at the game and I've watched the replay so you can take back your typical "anyone who thinks differently to me wasn't there" internet comment.

As I've said, Garlett has been struggling for form, but his efforts were better than a fair few others. What did you think of Hogan's effort on Saturday?

 

Stuie you posts recently have mostly been spot on, I was at the game and noticed Garlett putting in effort but things just not coming off for him, and his reading of the play seemed off. As for the Hogan comment I'm glad I wasn't the only one, seeing him jog around the forward 50 and watch hawks defenders just run past him was so frustrating. He needs to lift his defensive efforts big time, when he does I bet he will become the player he could be.

5 minutes ago, scarlett said:

Stuie you posts recently have mostly been spot on, I was at the game and noticed Garlett putting in effort but things just not coming off for him, and his reading of the play seemed off. As for the Hogan comment I'm glad I wasn't the only one, seeing him jog around the forward 50 and watch hawks defenders just run past him was so frustrating. He needs to lift his defensive efforts big time, when he does I bet he will become the player he could be.

If Hogan had already re-signed he would be edging towards some VFL time currently. Needs to direct the energy he puts into complaining about the umpiring into giving a second effort and applying defensive pressure. Grand total of 1 tackle over the last 4 games.

 

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by stuie

45 minutes ago, stuie said:

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.

 

I agree.

I would have dropped Harmes by now, who outside of his RS game (and Brisbane) has been ordinary since the Richmond/Saints games.  And Kent has played one good game in the last 5.

Teams haven't yet been finalised and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them makes way for Kennedy.

All of Kent, Garlett and Harmes have been poor for 6 weeks.

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

I agree.

I would have dropped Harmes by now, who outside of his RS game (and Brisbane) has been ordinary since the Richmond/Saints games.  And Kent has played one good game in the last 5.

Teams haven't yet been finalised and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them makes way for Kennedy.

All of Kent, Garlett and Harmes have been poor for 6 weeks.

Yep, agree with that. I'm a big fan of all 3, especially Kent, but they've all been underwhelming the last few weeks. I feel like Harmes has been the best out of those 3 plus Hogan for forward pressure, so maybe that has saved him? Best of a bad bunch kind of thing. I would assume Kennedy is in for Garlett's role, so not sure who would come in for either Kent or Harmes, maybe it relies on if Viney gets up?

 

If Viney plays as well I definitely wouldn't rule out Harmes or Kent making way too.  I can't imagine Kennedy not playing on the back of his VFL game and the fact that he was pretty stiff to be dropped in the first place - could easily have been Harmes, Kent or Garlett as previously mentioned.

Kennedy and Viney for Garlett and Harmes seems entirely reasonable to me.

3 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I agree.

I would have dropped Harmes by now, who outside of his RS game (and Brisbane) has been ordinary since the Richmond/Saints games.  And Kent has played one good game in the last 5.

Teams haven't yet been finalised and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them makes way for Kennedy.

All of Kent, Garlett and Harmes have been poor for 6 weeks.

I feel like before last week whenever the team plays well Harmes is playing well. Which i think is why he doesnt get dropped. But on the weekend I thought he played poorly when the team played well. Instead of being one of many he was one of a few and was lucky to survive selection.

One of Kent or Garlett has to play each week because we need the speed, simple as that. Might become a bit of a roatating forward line between Kent, Garlett, Harmes and Kennedy untill some of them cement their spot. Selection pressure might help with that... 

Agree with mostly what both of you are saying other than maybe a bit of treading water last week against the dorks in anticipation of a bigger catch this week.

2016 targets are still in the eyes of the beholder, not us.

If Watts showed the poor defensive work and intensity that Hogan has done lately this site would have melted.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

I was at the game and I've watched the replay so you can take back your typical "anyone who thinks differently to me wasn't there" internet comment.

As I've said, Garlett has been struggling for form, but his efforts were better than a fair few others. What did you think of Hogan's effort on Saturday?

 

Garlett's efforts were better than "a fair few others".  Highly debatable.  Who else was worse than Garlett on the weekend?  Hogan was beaten by Frawley but I didn't think it was effort, I thought he struggled to know where to be position wise in the wet conditions....didn't play in front enough.  But, unlike Garlett, it was one of his rare poor games over the last 6 weeks.  But hey, if you want to drop Hogan ahead of Garlett, then good luck to you.

2 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

If Watts showed the poor defensive work and intensity that Hogan has done lately this site would have melted.

Gorg we will have to wait until he signs a lucrative long contract before we can bag him.

Just now, stuie said:

No issues with the selections today, I'm more concerned that Roos still allows a loose player in defence.

4 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

No issues with the selections today, I'm more concerned that Roos still allows a loose player in defence.

Yeah, that's bad too.

My biggest concern is that we picked the text book wrong type of team for the conditions. I was waiting for some kind of masterstroke game plan that made it work, but alas....

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Yeah, that's bad too.

My biggest concern is that we picked the text book wrong type of team for the conditions. I was waiting for some kind of masterstroke game plan that made it work, but alas....

 

Who would have you had in ?, there is not a player at Casey that would have changed todays result in any significant way

17 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Who would have you had in ?, there is not a player at Casey that would have changed todays result in any significant way

It's not just about the player, it's about the team mix in the conditions.

Grimes, Harmes, ANB and Michie are no match winners by any stretch, and no one can tell the future, but it's a fundamental of footy that tall players are not as good in the wet and their strengths are diminished. So surely bringing in two (at least) of them for say Frost and OMac would have been logical.

 

Edited June 19, 20169 yr by stuie

I posted as much in the three word analysis thread.

It is akin to winning a test at the WACA with a four pronged pace attack, and then expecting that same attack to perform the next weekend on a dust bowl in India. It is a completely different game.

100% chance of 30 mm of heavy rain forecasted for days in advanced and we go in with Gawn, Hogan, Dawes, Frost, Watts & 2 x MacDonalds. 

Surely we had to leave out Dawes & Oscar Mac and bring in 2 runners such as Harmes, Grimes, Michie.

 

2 minutes ago, goodwindees said:

100% chance of 30 mm of heavy rain forecasted for days in advanced and we go in with Gawn, Hogan, Dawes, Frost, Watts & 2 x MacDonalds. 

Surely we had to leave out Dawes & Oscar Mac and bring in 2 runners such as Harmes, Grimes, Michie.

 

Think the three tall backs work a little better than the top heavy forward line because of Sam Frost's run, which was okay at times. Dawes would have been first out for me and it would have made a big difference having another small running around, especially someone like ANB who has strength around the contests. Petracca could have provided that second focal point up forward.

Poor selection once again IMO.

Should have dropped Dawes pre game and brought Michie in. Once the ball hit the ground he was non existant.  

Steve Wonder could see that having Dawes playing in those conditions was a poor poor choice.

Dawes had a blinder last week and is one of our senior leaders. It is clear that if fit the match committee regards him as one of the first picked. 

Also, this year we have consistently rewarded players for adherence to team plans etc. We were good last week this no one was dropped. 

Oscar McDonald was playing on Rowan and Heeney as far a I could see, which are both medium sized forwards, we didn't need him in the team, against Adelaide with Jenkins, Lynch and Walker we will need an extra tall bac there but we could have used an extra midfielder or forward instead of him today. The sooner Dunn, Pedersen or Lumumba are available we swap them for O Mac. Having two identical defenders in the same backline isn't working for us. Both too slow and indecisive at critical times.

42 minutes ago, deanox said:

Dawes had a blinder last week and is one of our senior leaders. It is clear that if fit the match committee regards him as one of the first picked. 

Also, this year we have consistently rewarded players for adherence to team plans etc. We were good last week this no one was dropped. 

Overstating things a bit there 'deanox'...