Changes for next week?

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

29 minutes ago, Night Crawler said:

He is right. If there is a player who is in our best 22 and they are fit they should play.

I want to win every game. You play your best 22 to maximise the chance of winning.

I feel like we are very much still working out who is best 22

[jackaub 1,402]

13 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

...we better not talk about it...

re: Stringer please don't say that, he will kick 12

Garland and Dunn the last vestiges of the Dean Bailey certified loser's mentality

cut em out

Garland Dunn Watts Grimes are all on the CL,s list

[olisik 4,060]

I would consider playing Hogan on Stringer. Would give him an absolute bath. We can win games without Hogan up forward.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

9 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

I don't really understand why everyone always says this stuff.. just because we had a good win doesn't mean our current 22 is the exact perfect configuration of a team from now on. Garland did nothing, if Lumumba had been in we may have won by 100. If ANB had been in instead of Michie maybe 110-120. I'm just chucking examples out of course but it makes no sense to me logically that you are for some reason forbidden to change a winning side. Reward form and pick the best 22, who cares if we won last week.

All decent, modern coaches like to reward players in a functioning, winning team.

Haven't got the time or inclination to find the literally one bizillion direct quotes on the topic, but google Paul Roos' media conferences since the early 2000s and you'll find plenty of quotes affirming this.

No one would advocate playing, say, Michie on a tall forward etc - that'd beggar belief and defy logic from a professional football department. The generic principle remains though.

In two games this year: Saints and Essendon - I have thought the team on paper doesn't look quite right. Thought we needed Dunn in the back half against the Dons and another runner/genuine mid against the Saints, something acknowledged by Roos immediately after each loss.

To my mind, the side fielded against the Suns had a good balance to it. And relevantly, every single player played out of their skin, both individually and as a collective, so I think absent an obvious player mismatch against the Bulldogs or someone literally kicking the door to Fort Knox down in last week's performance in the VFL such that they absolutely deserve to be selected in the seniors, the team should remain unchanged.

Hardly seems a controversial statement, but some here would argue that day's not night and vice versa.

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I wouldn't be surprised if Wagner gets a go playing on Stringer.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

8 hours ago, hemingway said:

Welcome back Curry, good to see you have lost none of your delicate understated touch. 

subtlety is key

seriously though the bloke plays with zero passion and I am sick of it

it's a constant reminder of the failure we used to be when we had 22 blokes not giving the slightest stuff about winning

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

47 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Garland Dunn Watts Grimes are all on the CL,s list

at least Watts may have come out the other side, I am not convinced yet though. Very quiet game on Saturday when we were well in control and had a ton of quality ball coming inside 50. He is still a patchy player

[nutbean 8,837]

11 hours ago, willmoy said:

Nut , are you like me, and would really like Col Garland to get angry? 

Not so much angry however...

I know you can't transplant what Viney has but I will use Daniel Cross as an example - He went at every contest like it was his last. I want to see a little passion in Garland - and I think I am seeing it. I have never seen him "fire up" before but during the game on Saturday a Sun, Garlands opponent  came late into the back of Melbourne player unnecessarily and our player was awarded a free.  Garland grabbed his jumper and gave him a decent shake up. (not a Viney shake up but a shakeup none the less)  

I said it before in this post - he started with a horrible handpass but you could see that the coaches have got in his ear and he absolutely tried to do more offensively.

Except for one absolute shocker i thought he was ok and to me his competing with two other footballers for his position at the moment - Dunn, who is out of favour and OMac who i think will be good but is just not ready yet. 

I am not writing Garland off yet - he is a good intercept mark, he has some pace for a bloke his size. If he can do more of the getting the ball and going quickly as he did once or twice then he has value. To me it depends on what Garland we get going forward  -  we need to get more quick offense from him  - that's the key IMO.     

[nutbean 8,837]

2 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

at least Watts may have come out the other side, I am not convinced yet though. Very quiet game on Saturday when we were well in control and had a ton of quality ball coming inside 50. He is still a patchy player

I beg to differ on quality ball coming in - in the first half we were too static, bombed the ball too much and had Hogan, Pedersen and Watts ( and a resting Gawn) all working into each others space.Lots of inside 50's for not enough result.

In the second half the goals came from our midfield running and spreading. Watts did some ok things in the second half and you could see him leading and creating space for others and many of his leads not being rewarded. I am not so sure the coaching staff would be unhappy with either Watts or Hogans game.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

16 hours ago, Skuit said:

The Harmes soccer goal. Colin ignores a short dink option on the outside from half back, sells some candy to run straight up the middle and kicks long inside 50. No doubt he's been told that's part of his job.

He ignored a free Oliver in space on the wing to bomb long and high to none of our forwards advantage. 

In fact, the goal resulted from an ineffective spoil from an opposition defender who really should have marked the ball.

Was lucky if anything.

We won't trouble top sides if we continue entering 50 the way we have been and whilst Colin may be asked to play with more run, he needs to know when to give to a player who has more time to spot up a target and when to take it upon himself to break lines and kick to our forward' advantage. Bombing it long and high is the last think we need.

[dazzledavey36 49,003]

2 hours ago, olisik said:

I would consider playing Hogan on Stringer. Would give him an absolute bath. We can win games without Hogan up forward.

Thats like saying you would play Wayne Carey on Gary Ablett senior..

There are some things in life you just simply don't do.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

13 hours ago, willmoy said:

Nut , are you like me, and would really like Col Garland to get angry? 

I am like you and have wanted Garland to be angry for years. But it's just not in his makeup.

He plays without any sort of 'attitude' or 'Mongrel'. In fact the complete opposite. Plays without any sort of 'purpose'. He floats. Which is part of the reason he was dropped.

[olisik 4,060]

10 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Thats like saying you would play Wayne Carey on Gary Ablett senior..

There are some things in life you just simply don't do.

Carey played as a backman as a junior?

[dazzledavey36 49,003]

6 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I am like you and have wanted Garland to be angry for years. But it's just not in his makeup.

He plays without any sort of 'attitude' or 'Mongrel'. In fact the complete opposite. Plays without any sort of 'purpose'. He floats. Which is part of the reason he was dropped.

Do you that as a fact STMJ. I'm usually a Garland critic but to say that he was dropped because he just 'floats' without no eveidence or facts is quite poor.

Not every player has to be a raging bull. Jack Watts still coasts and probably doesn't hit contests as hard as i would like but he is doing other things thats contributing to our wins.

Going back to the Essendon game i would like to think Garland was dropped because of his poor decision making and skill errors that resulted in turnovers and couple of goals. He really was horrible that day.

[Pates 9,537]

2 hours ago, olisik said:

I would consider playing Hogan on Stringer. Would give him an absolute bath. We can win games without Hogan up forward.

Ah I have no idea what you're talking about. Totally different players. Hogan is a big FF/CHF, he crashes packs, and takes big marks. Stringer is more a mid forward, with pace and balance, with the ability to do the quick outstanding goals. Would be a shocking match up for us.

Garland I would say could be first on the block if Lumumba is right to go, Dunn also had a great game for Casey and so too Frost could be called back up as a defender. Michie didn't do much with his call up so he may also be looked at for ANB.

Great to have options!

[Skuit 9,305]

43 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

He ignored a free Oliver in space on the wing to bomb long and high to none of our forwards advantage. 

In fact, the goal resulted from an ineffective spoil from an opposition defender who really should have marked the ball.

Was lucky if anything.

We won't trouble top sides if we continue entering 50 the way we have been and whilst Colin may be asked to play with more run, he needs to know when to give to a player who has more time to spot up a target and when to take it upon himself to break lines and kick to our forward' advantage. Bombing it long and high is the last think we need.

I didn't say that it was the right option. In fact, I think it was the wrong one (from memory, the candy was pretty unconvincing but the kick had decent penetration - and I think delivering it quick and long into the forward-line may have been the instructions v GC after the break). Just that I believe he's been told to do it and he would have previously taken the short, wide safe or up the line to a contest option regardless of whether it was the correct one. Watching Salem, Wagner and Hunt on top of Tmac and Lumumba, there has been a huge increase in side-stepping out of defense this year.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

I didn't say that it was the right option. In fact, I think it was the wrong one (from memory, the candy was pretty unconvincing but the kick had decent penetration - and I think delivering it quick and long into the forward-line may have been the instructions v GC after the break). Just that I believe he's been told to do it and he would have previously taken the short, wide safe or up the line to a contest option regardless of whether it was the correct one. 

Who knows what he was thinking to be honest. Could have easily been that he simply didn't even have the confidence to hit Oliver and decided bombing it forward was the better option.

Obviously there are times to go sideways and times not to. 

But in that passage of play, if you have a look at how clear Oliver was you'll see that it was the right option given the amount of time and space Clayton would then have to kick to the advantage of a leading forward rather than sitting it on the head of one.

Im nitpicking. But these things are still noticeable and frustrate me.

Edited May 10, 2016 by stevethemanjordan

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Do you that as a fact STMJ. I'm usually a Garland critic but to say that he was dropped because he just 'floats' without no eveidence or facts is quite poor.

Not every player has to be a raging bull. Jack Watts still coasts and probably doesn't hit contests as hard as i would like but he is doing other things thats contributing to our wins.

Going back to the Essendon game i would like to think Garland was dropped because of his poor decision making and skill errors that resulted in turnovers and couple of goals. He really was horrible that day.

I don't know if some people don't read my posts or just choose to interpret them their own way and thereby completely missing important words like 'part of the reason'. 

If you had have seen where I'd written that part, you wouldn't have needed to reply in the way that you have. 

Because I never said that he was dropped BECAUSE he floats.

In my view, he was dropped for a few reasons. But his lack of energy/intensity and aggression in general would undoubtedly be a contributing factor to the way in which he impacts during games. I'm calling it 'floating'. And I have no doubt it is something that has contributed to his poor form and therefore part of why he was dropped.

Do you see?

 

[Gator 16,906]

9 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I don't know if some people don't read my posts ...

 

They're too long.

[old55 21,426]

I think it's most likely that Garland was dropped because he failed to implement the zone defence required and as a leader more is expected of him.  I also agree with other posters that it is likely that he needs to take the game on more and the example of him running through the middle is a good one despite how "free" Oliver may have been, the example is about his intent to attack in a way he has been unprepared to do previously.

Dunn was dropped for the failing to implement the zone properly against St.Kilda.  I'm not sure how much of a line can be drawn through his high possession game for Casey.  It's about transitioning to play a new style for him.  

Quite frankly, one or both may be traded at the end of the year and they would have some market value for the right customer.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Fifty-5

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

They're too long.

For those who prefer children's stories.

[Fat Tony 4,469]

As well as we played, I would still probably look to bring both Lumumba and Salem back into the side at the expense of Michie and Stretch. I like both Michie and Stretch, but it is getting very hard to pick a side at the moment given our depth and form.

Bontempelli is the player I am most concerned with from a match up point of view, with Vince looking like the best match up around stoppages.

MFC
Jetta	Garland	Wagner
Salem	T McDonald	Lumumba
Harmes	Vince	Bugg
Kent	Hogan	Kennedy
Garlett	Watts	Pedersen
Gawn	N Jones	Viney
Petracca	Tyson	Hunt	Oliver
IN	Lumumba	Salem
OUT	Michie	Stretch
CASEY
Terlich	O McDonald	Frost
Michie	Dunn	White
Grimes	Brayshaw	Stretch
T Smith	Dawes	Trengove
Hulett	Weideman	Briggs
Spencer	Newton	Neal-Bullen
Max King	Huchins	Munro	J Smith	McInerney
OUT
Melksham
Kennedy-Harris
Mitchell King
Vandenberg
M Jones

[P-man 13,239]

45 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I think it's most likely that Garland was dropped because he failed to implement the zone defence required and as a leader more is expected of him.  I also agree with other posters that it is likely that he needs to take the game on more and the example of him running through the middle is a good one despite how "free" Oliver may have been, the example is about his intent to attack in a way he has been unprepared to do previously.

Dunn was dropped for the failing to implement the zone properly against St.Kilda.  I'm not sure how much of a line can be drawn through his high possession game for Casey.  It's about transitioning to play a new style for him.  

Quite frankly, one or both may be traded at the end of the year and they would have some market value for the right customer.

Are they not allowed some time for adjustment like the others? Yes they are seasoned defenders but a new way of defending/protecting space would be a learning curve for everyone would it not?

I'd be hugely hesitant to trade two senior, key position players in one hit considering how young and inexperienced we are as it stands. Pending on who they were being replaced with.

I'm not sure what Garlo did that was so poor on the weekend for the record, other than the bizarrely errant handball. Wright was reasonably well held.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I would prefer Stretch to Lumumba.

[dpositive 1,555]

Watched the doggies last two games and they bring an enormous intensity to the game.

We cannot go with players who do not have that intensity.

Watts does play with intensity just does not compete.intensly, he applies tension through his positioning and his skill when he does have the ball.Others have to create that tension by playing close checking and tough.

players need to concentrate and have that intensity for every passage of the game and for game after game they also need to know how and when they can release their concentration to refresh for another effort.

Intensity must be recognised at training and in selection

The coaches .must assess who is "switched on" and who is "tired" after  their efforts. Anyone in the squad can be rested and anyone should be able to come in. We are building a squad where this attitude can now be used at selection.