8 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Of course you'd choose Dunn I that scenario but it's not the case.

I don't disagree that he appears out of his depth and lacking strength in contests. My point is that the likes of Dunn and Garland have hardly set the world on fire this season. If anything, Garland can fall under the 'hindrance' category so far this season.

Measuring the pay-off of persisting with Omac as opposed to playing Dunn now is going to be something we can do next year.

In my opinion, the club will be better placed for next year by getting games into him now, as opposed to learning at VFL standard. Like I said earlier, this is mainly due to the dearth of decent young defenders on the list.

 

As I said, "I understand the development angle" and don't assume I rate either Dunn or Garland, as I don't. 

When a guy is clearly out of his depth I don't understand how he benefits from being exposed like he is. 

Also, your answer to my question assumes this match isn't a must win.  That doesn't resonate well with me. 

5 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Of course you'd choose Dunn I that scenario but it's not the case.

I don't disagree that he appears out of his depth and lacking strength in contests. My point is that the likes of Dunn and Garland have hardly set the world on fire this season. If anything, Garland can fall under the 'hindrance' category so far this season.

Measuring the pay-off of persisting with Omac as opposed to playing Dunn now is going to be something we can do next year.

In my opinion, the club will be better placed for next year by getting games into him now, as opposed to learning at VFL standard. Like I said earlier, this is mainly due to the dearth of decent young defenders on the list.

 

All last year I was questioning their stupidly defencive game plan, and bang they have come out this year on pace for an all time record offencive improvement. They have done a few things that I have questioned and playing OMac is one for them. But they contrinue to improve and get results. They are playing OMac for a reason, they havent done anything without good reason so far so I'm going to be patient with this one.

12 minutes ago, ProDee said:

As I said, "I understand the development angle" and don't assume I rate either Dunn or Garland, as I don't. 

When a guy is clearly out of his depth I don't understand how he benefits from being exposed like he is. 

Also, your answer to my question assumes this match isn't a must win.  That doesn't resonate well with me. 

What part of my reply alludes to this match not being a 'must win?'

Remind me who's being assumptive?

2 minutes ago, McQueen said:

What part of my reply alludes to this match not being a 'must win?'

Remind me who's being assumptive?

"Of course you'd choose Dunn I that scenario but it's not the case."

So "of course" you'd choose Dunn to play in a GF tomorrow, but because it's not a GF, ergo not as important, you're happy with McDonald.

What part am I missing ?

5 hours ago, jackaub said:

                  Marks             Contested Marks           marks inside 50       Tackles

Dawes           4.3                         1.1                                0.9                     1.5

Pederson      5.3                         1.4                                0.9                      2.6

No pressure from Dawes  a little more from Pedo

Cannot see what Roos sees in Dawes except the monthly pay check and justifying it some how

Just dont get it

 

I dont get it either. Dawes has been playing for years and done close   to zilch in the process. Pedo can actually mark a ball.

Without knowing the answer to the Dawes Vs Pedersen riddle, I'd suggest that Dawes plays the role he's given in the team more consistently than Pedo, which has multiple benefits for the team beyond what he actually does with the ball. All the players repeat the mantra "just play my role" (Trenners said this multiple times in his press conference earlier in the week). 

Given we don't know the detail of what these roles are that players are being trained and asked to play in the team, its very hard to discern and judge if they are adhering to them, or not. But, for what its worth,  I suspect Dawes does it better than Pedo.

Edited June 3, 20169 yr by PaulRB

23 minutes ago, ProDee said:

"Of course you'd choose Dunn I that scenario but it's not the case."

So "of course" you'd choose Dunn to play in a GF tomorrow, but because it's not a GF, ergo not as important, you're happy with McDonald.

What part am I missing ?

I don't know actually. 

You said you understand the development angle. Why you're so hell bent on using the analogy of a GF to compare against the status quo is fallacious.

My argument is that there is more to gain out of playing Omac now.

You disagree. That's fine.

18 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

VDB - baffling inclusion

Kennedy - baffling omission

Grimes, Pedersen and Dunn - baffling non-recalls

Oscar McDonald and Kent - baffling that they've stayed in

Again, I'm scratching my head. Why are we bringing in THREE underdone players against Hawthorn? Just doesn't make sense.

Maybe it was better to bring in these changes against the Dawks then [censored] the others who had done the NT trip plus a couple of 6day turnaround games.

4 hours ago, AzzKikA said:

People need to stop thinking that they know more about the inside of the club than the actual people running it.

On Demonland?

21 hours ago, The Song Formerly Known As said:

People are bashing him about not being ready. No one thinks he doesn't have a chance to make it. But at the moment he is a major liability in the back line due to his build, strength, endeavor and nouse. Let him learn those things in the VFL and give him time bulking up.

 

So you learn how to play at AFL level in the VFL   novel concept

Edited June 3, 20169 yr by Satyriconhome

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

So you learn how to play at AFL level in the VFL   novel concept

Works for the Premiers ....not so novel huh

51 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

So you learn how to play at AFL level in the VFL   novel concept

 

47 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Works for the Premiers ....not so novel huh

I have a bit of a problem with this one 'bb'. If Hawthorn had their best 22 in you would struggle to find one player (probably only Duryea) who did their time at Box Hill.

Even in their current team where they have a few making up the numbers you could probably only say that Sicily, Duryea and O'Brien spent much time with the mustangs...

It's a bit of a myth that's grown up many years ago in the time of Tuck and then Dipper, even then the good ones played early on.

Rjay. The point is simply this , Hawthorn don't ever bring their talent on before warranted. They very very seldom bring in anyone who can't do a role as per Clarko's requirements. 

You put the Weed and Poos on you're  good to go. That's not us. Should be ?

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

So you learn how to play at AFL level in the VFL   novel concept

It could be meant to mean, you get ready to play in the AFL and not be smashed, by honing your craft in the VFL first and playing so well there, that your performances demand you be played in the AFL. 

Just now, Redleg said:

It could be meant to mean, you get ready to play in the AFL and not be smashed, by honing your craft in the VFL first and playing so well there, that your performances demand you be played in the AFL. 

Don't  bother Red..the foamers don't get it. 

2 hours ago, PaulRB said:

Without knowing the answer to the Dawes Vs Pedersen riddle, I'd suggest that Dawes plays the role he's given in the team more consistently than Pedo, which has multiple benefits for the team beyond what he actually does with the ball. All the players repeat the mantra "just play my role" (Trenners said this multiple times in his press conference earlier in the week). 

Given we don't know the detail of what these roles are that players are being trained and asked to play in the team, its very hard to discern and judge if they are adhering to them, or not. But, for what its worth,  I suspect Dawes does it better than Pedo.

Yep  definately does the back up ruck work and Marking the ball better.

OMac has played 6 games.

Do we remember Frawley at 6 games? Slow, fumbly, couldn't pick up a ball on the ground.

How limited was Nathan Jones in his first season? Unless he ran in a straight line he couldn't kick, handpass or lay a tackle. 

The club saw what they would become and persevered  bu playing them in the AFL, not in the reserves. Omac may not be a Weitering, but maybe Weitering is already close to his full potential and Omac will develop past him. Just like Viney and Ollie Wines. 

Omac is young, but the force is strong in this one! 

Maldon and others, please understand it's not a question of whether a player is any good now, or later etc it's the process.

If I was on a paddock I'd want my comrades to be the best there were. If others push them aside that's great. I don't want to be carrying noobs or having them fcuk things up and wrecking everyone's efforts. Let them learn, Learn and perfect (to a level ) so when they step over that line....they are ONE with the team....not it's  chink !! 

13 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

OMac has played 6 games.

Do we remember Frawley at 6 games? Slow, fumbly, couldn't pick up a ball on the ground.

How limited was Nathan Jones in his first season? Unless he ran in a straight line he couldn't kick, handpass or lay a tackle. 

The club saw what they would become and persevered  bu playing them in the AFL, not in the reserves. Omac may not be a Weitering, but maybe Weitering is already close to his full potential and Omac will develop past him. Just like Viney and Ollie Wines. 

Omac is young, but the force is strong in this one! 

The Nathan Jones comparison is one of the most stupid and pointless thing you could do. Jones could do all those things you pointed out he couldn't except maybe kicking.

And please... Weitering is already a lock 200 game future star. The Jesse Hogan of the backline.

Take off the rose coloured glasses ffs.

Slight change of toppic from all the Oscar bashing/selection bemoaning...

 I'm not much of a punter and don't really want to be seen to encouraging gambling, but IMHO the $5 being offered for a Melbourne win this week is pretty darn good based on respective form to date and I'm very tempted to put $50 on us.

I know recient past record against would suggest I'm a fool, but Hawthorn weren't all that good against the lions and neither have we been the past two, so I think it will come down to who wants it more.  I'm happy that we've selected a team of goers and we are about due for another breakthrough game like Geelong last year.

 

Any thoughts?

7 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Slight change of toppic from all the Oscar bashing/selection bemoaning...

 I'm not much of a punter and don't really want to be seen to encouraging gambling, but IMHO the $5 being offered for a Melbourne win this week is pretty darn good based on respective form to date and I'm very tempted to put $50 on us.

I know recient past record against would suggest I'm a fool, but Hawthorn weren't all that good against the lions and neither have we been the past two, so I think it will come down to who wants it more.  I'm happy that we've selected a team of goers and we are about due for another breakthrough game like Geelong last year.

 

Any thoughts?

So you're asking if we think you should bet? If you can afford to lose $50 go for it.

 

On 2 June 2016 at 8:53 AM, Devil is in the Detail said:

one of its' few functioning defenders, in an inexplicably feeble defence, to injury. Better??

Almost. There's no apostrophe in the possessive form of its. Neither before nor after the 's'. It's means it is (abbreviated form). Its' does not exist in English.

13 hours ago, Nasher said:

We are 5-5, so either the game plan doesn't require everyone on 100%, or it happens more often than "rarely". The results don't support your assertion. 

"I can only remember the last thing that happened" strikes again.

What are you on about? Do you even have a basic understanding of game styles and structure. 

If you do, then you would see the difference between a proven style like hawthorn (west coast, Bulldogs, Carlton and any other coach under clarkson) and ours. 

there is a reason why a first year coach can take the dogs into finals and Carlton from cellar dweller to giant killers.

there is a reason why we are still questioning the side 3 years in... 

Get a clue on what works in footy and what doesn't and get off the "Roos can do no wrong" bandwagon 

 

6 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

What are you on about? Do you even have a basic understanding of game styles and structure. 

If you do, then you would see the difference between a proven style like hawthorn (west coast, Bulldogs, Carlton and any other coach under clarkson) and ours. 

there is a reason why a first year coach can take the dogs into finals and Carlton from cellar dweller to giant killers.

there is a reason why we are still questioning the side 3 years in... 

Get a clue on what works in footy and what doesn't and get off the "Roos can do no wrong" bandwagon 

 

30 minutes ago, Skin D said:

Almost. There's no apostrophe in the possessive form of its. Neither before nor after the 's'. It's means it is (abbreviated form). Its' does not exist in English.

First posts don't get much better than this .